I don't think it has do with density. Norman is a core city and has a major economic impact to the metro area. University of Oklahoma and Norman Regional Hospital are the biggest employers, and they employ thousands in the region. Also, it is becoming a commercial center for shopping with University Town Center. I think it focuses more on economic impact and commuter percentage from surrounding cities.

And does Norman rely heavily on OKC for anything? Norman has always been a little different and done their own thing.

I’d say so. A lot of the OU grads end up working in OKC.

I don't think it has do with density. Norman is a core city and has a major economic impact to the metro area. University of Oklahoma and Norman Regional Hospital are the biggest employers, and they employ thousands in the region. Also, it is becoming a commercial center for shopping with University Town Center. I think it focuses more on economic impact and commuter percentage from surrounding cities.

And does Norman rely heavily on OKC for anything? Norman has always been a little different and done their own thing.

My point wasn't density but that people who are currently living in the rural parts of Norman and work in the urbanized portion of Norman don't get counted as commuters. If the city limits were smaller they would get counted.

I live in Moore, but work in Norman for the university. But about half the people I work with don't live in Norman.

New state, metropolitan and city population 2022 estimates just released this morning:

Oklahoma: 4,019,800 (+28,525) since 2021.
Oklahoma City: 694,800 (+6,439) since 2021.
Oklahoma City Metro Area: 1,459,380 (+15,793) since 2021.

Interesting to note more than half of the state population growth was in the Oklahoma City Metro area.

Source: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/data/tables.html

Tulsa city proper evidently lost over a thousand people. Poor Tulsa.

New state, metropolitan and city population 2022 estimates just released this morning:
...

Interesting to note more than half of the state population growth was in the Oklahoma City Metro area.

Source: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/data/tables.html

Where do you find that half of the state population growth was in OKC metro? Which of those files shows that?

For context, this puts Oklahoma City as the 53rd fastest-growing metro area in terms of raw numbers. It also puts us at 64th (out of 288) in % growth since 2021 for metro areas with over 500k, with a +1.09% increase, and 30th (out of 127) for metro areas with over 1M.

As usual, Texas is just crushing it in these metrics.

fortpatches from what G. Walker said the state gained a little over 28 thousand and okc metro gained over 15 thousand. So the math would show more that half in the state growth was in the metro.

fortpatches from what G. Walker said the state gained a little over 28 thousand and okc metro gained over 15 thousand. So the math would show more that half in the state growth was in the metro.

I would assume it is correct, but with just that information, you cannot draw that conclusion. I was wondering what other information was used to draw that conclusion.

Like, I didn't see where the people that entered the state [i.e., state growth] were also the people that settled in OKC metro [i.e., metro growth]. Hypothetically (and quite unlikely), all state growth could be in surrounding areas while metro growth was rural areas moving into the metro.

Tulsa city proper evidently lost over a thousand people. Poor Tulsa.

I’m surprised as the city had been seeing positive growth prior to 2020, and 5% growth since 2010. Unfortunately Tulsa is mostly built-out in the areas that it would naturally grow so it has to grow by infilling existing areas. That growth is not enough to offset the losses, especially families moving to the surrounding burbs.

I would assume it is correct, but with just that information, you cannot draw that conclusion. I was wondering what other information was used to draw that conclusion.

Like, I didn't see where the people that entered the state [i.e., state growth] were also the people that settled in OKC metro [i.e., metro growth]. Hypothetically (and quite unlikely), all state growth could be in surrounding areas while metro growth was rural areas moving into the metro.
A difference without a distinction. What point are you trying to make? You think people are moving to OK to move to small towns and farms? Come on. SMH 🤦*♂️

nice to see the metro area outpace the city. Still want to see the city growing more than 12,000 per year (1000 per mo), and the metro double that.

also, it's very clear that OKC metro are is leading the state on growth, not sure why there's even a debate. If the state grew by 28k in a year and OKC metro area grew by 16k; one would only conclude that most of the metro area's growth contributed to the state. Sure there had to have been rural to OKC migration but I seriously doubt it would be more than 10% of the 16k.

Some OKC suburbs lost population, such as Midwest City, Bethany and Warr Acres. Elsewhere in the state, it looks like a lot of small towns have been holding their own or adding on population since 2020.

Some OKC suburbs lost population, such as Midwest City, Bethany and Warr Acres. Elsewhere in the state, it looks like a lot of small towns have been holding their own or adding on population since 2020.

These are just estimates, and I don't believe any of that. I think Covid has messed up all of models.

Some OKC suburbs lost population, such as Midwest City, Bethany and Warr Acres. Elsewhere in the state, it looks like a lot of small towns have been holding their own or adding on population since 2020.

Of the 589 cities and towns in Oklahoma, over 209 had losses. Another 97 had no growth. Other than Tulsa itself, they were all small towns. Over half are losing population or have no growth. So no, they are not holding their own. Growth was concentrated in larger towns.

Here's the list of those growing more than 500.

City Population Growth
Oklahoma City city, Oklahoma 694,800 6,439
Broken Arrow city, Oklahoma 117,911 1,555
Mustang city, Oklahoma 22,232 1,127
Edmond city, Oklahoma 96,286 930
Newcastle city, Oklahoma 13,055 902
Yukon city, Oklahoma 25,556 856
El Reno city, Oklahoma 18,560 802
Owasso city, Oklahoma 39,328 649
Bixby city, Oklahoma 29,800 599
Norman city, Oklahoma 129,627 557
Piedmont city, Oklahoma 8,445 535
Jenks city, Oklahoma 27,141 517
Durant city, Oklahoma 19,628 508

8 are OKC Metro
4 are Tulsa Area
1 is close to DFW

Rover, you're using census figures from 2021 to 2022. I was looking at census figures from 2020 to 2022.

Nevertheless, 283 out of 589 towns in Oklahoma from 2021 to 2022 actually being able to grow is a lot to me.

A difference without a distinction. What point are you trying to make? You think people are moving to OK to move to small towns and farms? Come on. SMH 臘*♂️

No? I literally said that I would assume otherwise, and that another conclusion would be "quite unlikely".
At least respond to what I said if you are going to respond.

Duplicate post

Here is the link to the city population data. OKC remains number 20 and is growing by about 6,500 people a year — just in city limits — to a population of 694,000 in 2022.

Tulsa is continuing to lose population within its city limits although the decline is not substantial, about 1k a year.

https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/tables/2020-2022/cities/totals/SUB-IP-EST2022-ANNRNK.xlsx

OKC is in good company for growth. The amount of Texas cities on that list that are increasing significantly is so wild.

.


List of United States cities by population:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population


20. Oklahoma City, OK - (2022) 694,800 - (2020) 681,054 = 13,746/2 = 6,873
47. Tulsa, OK - (2022) 411,867 - (2020) 413,066 = 1,199/2 = 599.5

Tulsa lost very little population within its city limits; they increased their MSA population for the same perod:

List of United States cities by Metropolitan Statistical Area population:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area


42. Oklahoma City, OK MSA - 1,459,380 - 1,425,695 = 33,685/2 = 16,842
54. Tulsa, OK MSA - 1,034,123 - 1,015,331 = 18,795/2 = 9,396

.


List of United States cities by population:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population


20. Oklahoma City, OK - (2022) 694,800 - (2020) 681,054 = 13,746/2 = 6,873
47. Tulsa, OK - (2022) 411,867 - (2020) 413,066 = 1,199/2 = 599.5

Tulsa lost very little population within its city limits; they increased their MSA population for the same perod:

List of United States cities by Metropolitan Statistical Area population:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area


42. Oklahoma City, OK MSA - 1,459,380 - 1,425,695 = 33,685/2 = 16,842
54. Tulsa, OK MSA - 1,034,123 - 1,015,331 = 18,795/2 = 9,396






You'll note that I stated that Tulsa's city limits population decline is not substantial. Not sure why you feel the need to post things in giant typography to get your point across.

I think you would agree that people on this forum would be concerned if OKC lost any number of people in any single year, though, let alone in two successive census counts.

^
hey watch out now, I like the way Laramie posts, that is his niche! He has been doing it for a long time.

No Laramie slander allowed. I don't make the rules.

No Laramie slander allowed. I don't make the rules.
Agreed. Laramie is the sh!t. You wanna go through him? Gotta go through me first. Laramie you are awesome!

You'll note that I stated that Tulsa's city limits population decline is not substantial. Not sure why you feel the need to post things in giant typography to get your point across.

I think you would agree that people on this forum would be concerned if OKC lost any number of people in any single year, though, let alone in two successive census counts.

I didn’t take his post as implying you were wrong or as trying to correct you. It’s not uncommon for Laramie to focus on a specific point or even phrase in a larger post and add some form of descriptive statistics to contextualize it.

Just wondering about the Tulsa numbers, is it possible that some or all of the decline is due to people getting older? What I mean is that instead of a household with 2 parents and say 2 or 3 kids, the kids are grown and not living in Tulsa, maybe moved to a suburb or to another state? Now its just empty nesters and possibly an older adult who has lost their spouse. So instead of 5 people living in that house, there is only 1 or 2. Add with that not a lot of new housing vs what is torn down. Just a random thought. Okc has lots of land and lots of new housing stock being built so attracts young people starting families or who have families.

Just wondering about the Tulsa numbers, is it possible that some or all of the decline is due to people getting older? What I mean is that instead of a household with 2 parents and say 2 or 3 kids, the kids are grown and not living in Tulsa, maybe moved to a suburb or to another state? Now its just empty nesters and possibly an older adult who has lost their spouse. So instead of 5 people living in that house, there is only 1 or 2. Add with that not a lot of new housing vs what is torn down. Just a random thought. Okc has lots of land and lots of new housing stock being built so attracts young people starting families or who have families.

All of those things. Not enough new “family” neighborhoods to offset these losses. Though that will likely change in the next decade with the anticipated growth with the Gilcrease Loop in NW Tulsa and Fair Oaks in east Tulsa, as well as increased infill in midtown and downtown. Tulsa is nearly built-out in its south and west sides where most of the recent growth has been happening in Jenks/Bixby/BA.

The MSA population numbers >> City proper population numbers (especially given OKC’s footprint)

I can see why Holt pimps that number, but the IKEAs of the world care about the MSA.

The MSA population numbers >> City proper population numbers (especially given OKC’s footprint)

I can see why Holt pimps that number, but the IKEAs of the world care about the MSA.

No, he pimps it because his Job is to monitor OKC news. His job doesn't really concern itself with anything else.

This is like watching a pillow fight.

You'll note that I stated that Tulsa's city limits population decline is not substantial. Not sure why you feel the need to post things in giant typography to get your point across.

I think you would agree that people on this forum would be concerned if OKC lost any number of people in any single year, though, let alone in two successive census counts.

My dude you don't need to make everything about you, especially when you're targeting one of the most genuine and helpful people this forum has to offer

Soonerguru; My post wasn't aimed at you. I couldn't open your link (technical on my end). I viewed a number of threads posted above your post and saw the city population 694,800.

Recall seeing that figure. I only posted the results from the Wikipedia sites because both had City and Metro areas for 2020 - 2022.

TULSA, I'm rooting for our sister city; glad to see the potential the Tulsa area will have--many city populations are in decline or slow to negative city population growth. Among the top 32 cities, 9 had gains--San Antonio, Austin, Jacksonville, Fort Worth, Columbus, Charlotte, Seattle, OKC and Las Vegas..

Tulsa only lost 600 a year, (not 1k a year). Also wanted to highlight Tulsa's MSA population strength. Oklahoma has two major MSA cities with much promise for the next 3-5 years.

We will see T-town rebound with some promising developments for Pryor and Inola on the horizon. Predict Tulsa will show a city population
gain come 2026.

Tulsa city proper population will shoot up again when they fill in the east side around the Lynn Lane Reservoir. This is a huge area mostly slated for residential that just needs the infrastructure improvements to really take off. There have been masterplans in the works for awhile. A huge new sewer interceptor should go in soon if it hasn't started already that will allow development to follow. With the new Inola plant going in, I predict developers are frothing to start a bunch of new neighborhoods in this area. A few downtown projects are also well underway that will bring a few hundred units in. Not explosive growth in Tulsa proper, but definitely a bit more room to fill in. As others have said, the MSA is still chugging along with huge growth in Bixby, Jenks, Owasso, BA and Glenpool, not to mention steady growth in Sapulpa, Sand Springs, etc.

Nothing will stop the OKC freight train as far as in-city population goes with those borders. So much land to fill. Has anyone done a calculation of how large OKC proper would be if all the current borders were filled with standard single family residential density? I didn't even realize the city limits encircled Mustang to such a great degree and went all the way NE to Luther!?

Yeah it's probably been said but Tulsa proper's population change from 2020 to 2022 probably has a lot more to do with people in the core and those moving here opting to take advantage while interest rates were low on better prices for newbuilds with more land in the suburbs over packing into midtown/south Tulsa. Also I know a bunch first hand who prefer to add some more distance between themselves and others after Covid, especially given most companies' newfound willingness to let people work from home more often. I feel like that might be playing into that a bit as well. Tulsa's city limits are tiny compared to OKC's and much of it is already developed and built out (other than some areas in east Tulsa as mentioned above). There is still a shortage of for sale and rental housing available in Midtown/South Tulsa so it is still a little hard to believe the estimated decline. That said with some of the efforts to redevelop areas of downtown in addition to building up east Tulsa, I would imagine that is about to correct itself.

One thing that Tulsa has done way better than OKC to date, partially due to available building stock, is office building to apartment conversions in the CBD. OKC had Park Harvey, The Montgomery, and Carnegie Centre for years that was it until First National opened last year. The Harlow and Holiday Inn about to undergo conversions also will help but there's been a big missed opportunity for that between the CBD (including some building that Sandridge KO'd) and upper floors in Bricktown. Tulsa has at least 10 conversions in the CBD alone with two more being redeveloped right now and opening later this year. It made a massive difference for downtown street life for awhile though unfortunately the business crowd reduction post-Covid has really hurt many of the street level retail/restaurants so we're in a bit of a weird transition period right now. Where Tulsa is way behind is on newbuild apartment buildings on vacant lots in the districts around the CBD though slowly but surely developers are starting to catchup.

All of that to say that downtown apartment vacancy rates are very low and new complexes keep filling up despite fewer people needing to be downtown for work so that will also help reverse that negative estimated trend.

Spent a fair amount of time Sunday in downtown Tulsa. Having lived at Center Plaza years ago. I was really disappointed with how little real progress has been made with making it a connected urban area. It is basically the same as it was 40 years ago with a smattering of new buildings. Whereas Bricktown, Automobile Alley, Innovation District, Midtown, Arts District, Automobile Alley, and Scissortail Park are all pretty connected and encourage infilling between and around, Tulsa's Blue Dome, 15th Street, and downtown are really disconnected. Lots of dead spaces in downtown and little weekend activity. Tulsa central has a long way to go.

I went to the river park in Tulsa and was impressed in what it had become vs. the riverside of old, but between it and Scissortail, there were way more people yesterday at Scissortail.

Tulsa really is behind where it needs to be to attract people to a vibrant core, IMO. And I didn't find any developments like Wheeler anywhere. Suburban developments were pretty standard. I saw no "lifestyle" centers in my drive around... maybe just missed some.

On the great for Tulsa side, we went to Philbrook for a very good exhibition. What a great facility and grounds. OKC has no grounds like it. The Trees, hills and vegitation does make certain parts of Tulsa outstanding to the eye. And Utica Square is still very nice.

There's a reason OKC is attractive to move-ins, whether inter or intra state. It's good to go some other places and then come back and appreciate just how far OKC has come in the last two decades. It seems on a great trajectory.

Spent a fair amount of time Sunday in downtown Tulsa. Having lived at Center Plaza years ago. I was really disappointed with how little real progress has been made with making it a connected urban area. It is basically the same as it was 40 years ago with a smattering of new buildings. Whereas Bricktown, Automobile Alley, Innovation District, Midtown, Arts District, Automobile Alley, and Scissortail Park are all pretty connected and encourage infilling between and around, Tulsa's Blue Dome, 15th Street, and downtown are really disconnected. Lots of dead spaces in downtown and little weekend activity. Tulsa central has a long way to go.

I went to the river park in Tulsa and was impressed in what it had become vs. the riverside of old, but between it and Scissortail, there were way more people yesterday at Scissortail.

Tulsa really is behind where it needs to be to attract people to a vibrant core, IMO. And I didn't find any developments like Wheeler anywhere. Suburban developments were pretty standard. I saw no "lifestyle" centers in my drive around... maybe just missed some.

On the great for Tulsa side, we went to Philbrook for a very good exhibition. What a great facility and grounds. OKC has no grounds like it. The Trees, hills and vegitation does make certain parts of Tulsa outstanding to the eye. And Utica Square is still very nice.

There's a reason OKC is attractive to move-ins, whether inter or intra state. It's good to go some other places and then come back and appreciate just how far OKC has come in the last two decades. It seems on a great trajectory.

AND YOU DIDN'T CALL ME?!? JK JK.

I think Tulsa has been working toward and doing a decent job of connecting downtown to the Blue Dome, Brady, and Pearl Districts over the last 10 years and that really has been most of the focus. The East Village is evidence of that and it didn't really exist at all about 10 years ago. In addition, developer focus has been redevelopment of existing historic buildings to add residents/hotel guests to the CBD (which you don't really see because the buildings look the same but just have people in them all the time now) which I'm all for because it's Tulsa's best selling point over OKC. It's CBD is frankly just cooler and has more of a big midwestern city feel (especially when people are down here) than OKC's CBD due to not near as much of the original core being razed during urban renewal. Outside of the CBD though, especially east and south of downtown, it's and urban development waste land of parking lots that are finally starting to fill up on the east side...where Santa Fe Square is well underway in the Blue dome and the impending development of the PAC lot (finally will take out a massive surface lot and help further connect the CBD to the blue dome). OKC's development of everything around it's CBD has blown past Tulsa's over the last two decades.

Tulsa really needs to actively work toward connecting the core to midtown as little has been done in the sea of parking to the south. I hope the city takes a cue from OKC and turns a bunch of those lots into a park that would connect downtown to Cherry Street/Maple Ridge. Those lots aren't getting developed anytime soon so making them a massive park would go a long way toward encouraging development in the other vacant lots down there.

As far as weekend activity, similar to OKC back when Bricktown was all it had going, most of that is in the Brady/Bluedome/Greenwood Districts around the ball park. I was down there most of the weekend and there was a lot of activity. I wouldn't judge downtown activity or attendance at the gathering place on memorial day weekend though as it was uncharacteristically quiet here for such a nice weekend. Comparing the two cities over the last few years, it really seems like people don't stick around the city on summer holiday weekends in Tulsa as much as they do in OKC. There were a ton of people all over the place over the last two weeks for Mayfest and the Ironman back to back weekends and especially will be will be nuts all over the central part of the city gearing up for Tulsa Tough over the next two weeks.

But yeah in general OKC has lapped Tulsa in things to do and places to go in and around the core.

Spent a fair amount of time Sunday in downtown Tulsa. Having lived at Center Plaza years ago. I was really disappointed with how little real progress has been made with making it a connected urban area. It is basically the same as it was 40 years ago with a smattering of new buildings. Whereas Bricktown, Automobile Alley, Innovation District, Midtown, Arts District, Automobile Alley, and Scissortail Park are all pretty connected and encourage infilling between and around, Tulsa's Blue Dome, 15th Street, and downtown are really disconnected. Lots of dead spaces in downtown and little weekend activity. Tulsa central has a long way to go.

I went to the river park in Tulsa and was impressed in what it had become vs. the riverside of old, but between it and Scissortail, there were way more people yesterday at Scissortail.

Tulsa really is behind where it needs to be to attract people to a vibrant core, IMO. And I didn't find any developments like Wheeler anywhere. Suburban developments were pretty standard. I saw no "lifestyle" centers in my drive around... maybe just missed some.

On the great for Tulsa side, we went to Philbrook for a very good exhibition. What a great facility and grounds. OKC has no grounds like it. The Trees, hills and vegitation does make certain parts of Tulsa outstanding to the eye. And Utica Square is still very nice.

There's a reason OKC is attractive to move-ins, whether inter or intra state. It's good to go some other places and then come back and appreciate just how far OKC has come in the last two decades. It seems on a great trajectory.

^I agree in principle on all that, but there has been a good amount of development in certain parts of downtown over the past decade. The blue dome and arts districts are almost unrecognizable from a decade ago. I kind of agree that they aren't well connected, but they are connected and I frequently walk between the blue dome and arts districts on weekend nights. The development of the View apartments helped make Elgin feel like a better connector street vs. the warehouses 5 years ago. Blue dome just filled in a massive empty parking lot with a new office tower, new hotel, new apartments, and new retail spaces (still partly under construction).

There's a lot more to go, and I agree that it's all very important in creating a vibrant atmosphere that people will actually want to move to. Tulsa did invest heavily in river parks, Gathering Place, the new river dams and white water course, and Turkey Mountain, so that's where a lot of the lifestyle efforts have gone, and OKC doesn't have a lot to match it yet, although obviously the OKC white water course is amazing and the parks along the Oklahoma River are coming along.

Ultimately what OKC and Tulsa need more of to build vibrancy are the big time entertainment amenities like other major cities have. Frontier City and Paradise Beach are dinky parks regardless of the recent efforts to fix them up. Both metros are getting a lot of pickle ball courts and breweries, but that's just filling the void that the previous generation filled with Applebee's and bowling, lol. At least OKC has the Criterion and an NBA team. Those are hard for Tulsa to match.

Has anyone done a calculation of how large OKC proper would be if all the current borders were filled with standard single family residential density?

If The Village's 2020 population density of 3,743 filled up OKC's land area, OKC's population would be 2,270,000.

The square mile bounded by N Penn, NW 150th, N May, and NW 164th has a population of 5,623. That would equal an OKC population of 3,410,000.

Great discussion - OKC proper has nearly unlimited population growth potential, especially if things ever start to densify.

One interesting note - the Census estimates for Tulsa proper leading up to 2020 predicted a fairly significant population loss. Instead Tulsa gained something like 22,000. I'm not sure if there's a reason why Tulsa's estimates are negative.. will be interesting to see if they're incorrect again in 2030.

I agree with several of the posts regarding CBD/Midtown flow. I've always though OKC has a great flow from midtown to downtown, there's not a lot of dead space. Tulsa has a long ways to go in that regard. The IDL poses major challenges to the north and south, but progress is slowly being made.

Yes, OKC has good population growth, but we know the true population of a city is the MSA. Going by the MSA gauges the correct economic impact, influence, and growth trajectory of a city. For example, Atlanta's population is just 500,000 but its MSA is 6.1 million.

So I don't get too hung up on city proper population.

^^^ it’s a crime this is rarely mentioned but OKC actually has a bigger population number than Atlanta. So OKC must be the bigger city with more to do and a bigger airport. /s

MSA really is the more important number for a variety of reasons. It's important to remember that the city proper's significant population growth is almost completely a function of its annexation binge. If OKC's city limits were the same size as most eastern and midwestern cities, I have no doubt the city population would be pretty stagnant. The boom in the core would be offset by - probably - falling numbers in many older parts of town.

Here is the link to the city population data. OKC remains number 20 and is growing by about 6,500 people a year — just in city limits — to a population of 694,000 in 2022.

Tulsa is continuing to lose population within its city limits although the decline is not substantial, about 1k a year.

https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/tables/2020-2022/cities/totals/SUB-IP-EST2022-ANNRNK.xlsx

Tulsa's $10,000 incentive to get people to move there evidentially isn't doing a good job of making up for people who move out of Tulsa.

https://tulsaremote.com

^Tulsa Remote is kind of like sticking your finger in a leaking hole. There's still a lot of pressure pushing younger, tech-focused people out of Tulsa (actually Oklahoma at large and not just Tulsa). The TR people I have met only stick around for a few years. They like Tulsa a bit and always say it's not as bad as they thought, but they never stick around long term. It's hard to convince people that Tulsa (or anywhere in OK) is a great long term spot to settle down for reasons we have discussed in plenty of other threads. I think TR accomplished a few things such as helping expand our tech presence and get Holberton School off the ground, among other things, but it was an expensive program with not a lot of long term impact. Holberton is a much bigger deal in attracting and building younger talent and getting them to stick around for awhile.

The wife and I have thought about taking advantage of the Tulsa program since we both work remote but Tulsa is missing one item at the top of our list - we want to live somewhere that has some form of rail transit.

MSA really is the more important number for a variety of reasons. It's important to remember that the city proper's significant population growth is almost completely a function of its annexation binge. If OKC's city limits were the same size as most eastern and midwestern cities, I have no doubt the city population would be pretty stagnant. The boom in the core would be offset by - probably - falling numbers in many older parts of town.

You make a very fair point here but OKC's inner city is growing in population, too. The number of large-scale apartment buildings and infill projects under way in the urban core is significant in OKC right now. And with so much developable land in the urban core, the scenario you describe is unlikely to happen here -- at least for many, many years unless for some reason living in the core becomes immensely undesirable, something that seems unlikely.

Pete has described all of the activity in his neighborhood, but it's happening all around the urban core, at least north of the river. Now, there is activity starting to pop in the Capitol Hill area as well, so this movement may broaden to include those adjacent neighborhoods south of the river.

Personally, I think it would be outstanding if OKC could hit a population of one million in city limits in the slightly enlarged area above, excluding the land in Canadian and Cleveland and Pottawatomie Counties, and it seems very likely to occur within the next decade or two, provided we continue to have the outstanding leadership we enjoy now coupled with continued success diversifying and modernizing our economy.

1. It would put OKC in the top 10 or so of US cities.
2. Our urban character would be enhanced and improved.
3. Our transit system would be improved to accommodate greater demand.
4. Our land-use policies would be more coherent and modernized.

And, even if the empty parcels all disappear, there's still the prospect of building with more height and more high-density housing down the road. I'm not a demographer or cartographer or anything of the sort, but it seems OKC could easily add another 150k to the urban core, which for the sake of my argument extends out to say Belle Isle on the Northwest, 63rd street on the north, I-44 and Hefner Parkway on the west, I-35 on the east, plus the expanding territory immediately south of the river, which is already showing signs of new infill, with a resolute southern boundary of I-240.

Then, if you really want to look at it more expansively, the neighborhoods just west of I-44 and just north of 63rd really up to say Britton Road and south to 89th could really be considered Oklahoma City, as opposed to the burbs.

I mean, thinking of this even more, if infill continued to all of those boundaries, and perhaps up Northwest Expressway to, say, McCarthur or even Rockwell, OKC could probably fit another 400k people in this slightly expanded boundary without doing too much that is radical.

Soonerguru,
Outstanding points.

I agree that OKC could add 300K to get to one million people by engaging in high-density infill in the core and selected other areas, and even by continuing to build out single family in some areas. For example, you could get tens of thousands of people between Broadway Extension and I-35 in North OKC even with standard, single family development. You could build out the areas between Mustang and the airport, and along the Kilpatrick in all directions with single-family.

But the real key would be the under-utilized neighborhoods all throughout the core. In the OKANA thread, somebody made mention of all the vacant property around there. There is lots of vacant land around Wheeler, and many of the neighborhoods in near NE, near NW, and near S OKC are chock-a-block with vacant lots.

I don't have the time to do this project justice, but someone in a college class could look at the average density inside the Kilpatrick/240/35 loop, compare with average density of even the average American city and find a bunch of pathways to that goal. The result would be a much stronger, much more sustainable city that can support all kinds of things, notably transit. I'd love to see it.

A big problem hindering the core of OKC is that the school system is atrocious. Edmond, Moore, Norman, Yukon, Mustang, Deer Creek, these all have high-performing districts. OKC does not. So it is hard to get families who value education even a wink to move in the core of OKC. Or not into a suburb.

Chssooner, I'm not 100 percent sure that I agree with that statement. But even acknowledging that valid opinion and leaving that aside, I think what many of us of child-rearing years (and I am in that mode myself) fail to think about is that families with school-age children represent only a portion of the residents of a city.

Most people in their 20s, at least in an urban area, do not have school-age children.
Many people in their 30s and 40s do. But certainly not all. And some of them do private school, or magnet schools, or do use their neighborhood schools.
The majority of people over 50 do not have children at home, and the life expectancy is over 80 and climbing.

All that to say, we can't just use "schools" as a whipping boy or an excuse to throw in the towel. Many cities have far worse educational systems and have very, very vibrant urban cores.

^Tulsa Remote is kind of like sticking your finger in a leaking hole. There's still a lot of pressure pushing younger, tech-focused people out of Tulsa (actually Oklahoma at large and not just Tulsa). The TR people I have met only stick around for a few years. They like Tulsa a bit and always say it's not as bad as they thought, but they never stick around long term. It's hard to convince people that Tulsa (or anywhere in OK) is a great long term spot to settle down for reasons we have discussed in plenty of other threads. I think TR accomplished a few things such as helping expand our tech presence and get Holberton School off the ground, among other things, but it was an expensive program with not a lot of long term impact. Holberton is a much bigger deal in attracting and building younger talent and getting them to stick around for awhile.

I doubt a city bribing people with a $10,000 deal to move there helps its public image. Tulsa not being able to keep up with Oklahoma City much of the time goes back to at least the Great Depression. During the 1930's, Oklahoma City gained nearly 20,000 people. Tulsa barely held on with 101 people.

Soonerguru,
Outstanding points.

I agree that OKC could add 300K to get to one million people by engaging in high-density infill in the core and selected other areas, and even by continuing to build out single family in some areas. For example, you could get tens of thousands of people between Broadway Extension and I-35 in North OKC even with standard, single family development. You could build out the areas between Mustang and the airport, and along the Kilpatrick in all directions with single-family.

But the real key would be the under-utilized neighborhoods all throughout the core. In the OKANA thread, somebody made mention of all the vacant property around there. There is lots of vacant land around Wheeler, and many of the neighborhoods in near NE, near NW, and near S OKC are chock-a-block with vacant lots.

I don't have the time to do this project justice, but someone in a college class could look at the average density inside the Kilpatrick/240/35 loop, compare with average density of even the average American city and find a bunch of pathways to that goal. The result would be a much stronger, much more sustainable city that can support all kinds of things, notably transit. I'd love to see it.

The area highlighted in blue had a 2020 census population of 436,468 in an area of about 118.8 sq miles for a density of 3,674/sq mi.
Here are other cities' densities for comparison:
Denver - 4,674/sq mi
Dallas - 3,841
Atlanta - 3,686
Houston - 3,599
Omaha - 3,433
Albuquerque - 3,014
Austin - 3,007
Ft Worth - 2,646
Tulsa - 2,091

18049

^Tulsa Remote is kind of like sticking your finger in a leaking hole. There's still a lot of pressure pushing younger, tech-focused people out of Tulsa (actually Oklahoma at large and not just Tulsa). The TR people I have met only stick around for a few years. They like Tulsa a bit and always say it's not as bad as they thought, but they never stick around long term. It's hard to convince people that Tulsa (or anywhere in OK) is a great long term spot to settle down for reasons we have discussed in plenty of other threads. I think TR accomplished a few things such as helping expand our tech presence and get Holberton School off the ground, among other things, but it was an expensive program with not a lot of long term impact. Holberton is a much bigger deal in attracting and building younger talent and getting them to stick around for awhile.

That isn’t necessarily true. I know several of the people running the program as well as several that came to Tulsa through it. More than you’re suggesting have stuck around, some have even bought houses and started/moved businesses here. Generally the ones who left (that I’ve met) really liked Tulsa but either took assignments that required them to be elsewhere or were nomads before coming to Tulsa that had been taking advantage of their remote positions trying to live in a bunch of different places while they were young. Regardless it’s not like the program ever intended to bring 100000 people here. It’s relatively small.

You make a very fair point here but OKC's inner city is growing in population, too. The number of large-scale apartment buildings and infill projects under way in the urban core is significant in OKC right now. And with so much developable land in the urban core, the scenario you describe is unlikely to happen here -- at least for many, many years unless for some reason living in the core becomes immensely undesirable, something that seems unlikely.

Pete has described all of the activity in his neighborhood, but it's happening all around the urban core, at least north of the river. Now, there is activity starting to pop in the Capitol Hill area as well, so this movement may broaden to include those adjacent neighborhoods south of the river.

Personally, I think it would be outstanding if OKC could hit a population of one million in city limits in the slightly enlarged area above, excluding the land in Canadian and Cleveland and Pottawatomie Counties, and it seems very likely to occur within the next decade or two, provided we continue to have the outstanding leadership we enjoy now coupled with continued success diversifying and modernizing our economy.

1. It would put OKC in the top 10 or so of US cities.
2. Our urban character would be enhanced and improved.
3. Our transit system would be improved to accommodate greater demand.
4. Our land-use policies would be more coherent and modernized.

And, even if the empty parcels all disappear, there's still the prospect of building with more height and more high-density housing down the road. I'm not a demographer or cartographer or anything of the sort, but it seems OKC could easily add another 150k to the urban core, which for the sake of my argument extends out to say Belle Isle on the Northwest, 63rd street on the north, I-44 and Hefner Parkway on the west, I-35 on the east, plus the expanding territory immediately south of the river, which is already showing signs of new infill, with a resolute southern boundary of I-240.

Then, if you really want to look at it more expansively, the neighborhoods just west of I-44 and just north of 63rd really up to say Britton Road and south to 89th could really be considered Oklahoma City, as opposed to the burbs.

I mean, thinking of this even more, if infill continued to all of those boundaries, and perhaps up Northwest Expressway to, say, McCarthur or even Rockwell, OKC could probably fit another 400k people in this slightly expanded boundary without doing too much that is radical.

inject all of this into my veins.

A big problem hindering the core of OKC is that the school system is atrocious. Edmond, Moore, Norman, Yukon, Mustang, Deer Creek, these all have high-performing districts. OKC does not. So it is hard to get families who value education even a wink to move in the core of OKC. Or not into a suburb.

that is a problem but isn’t all that different than most other urban areas.

that is a problem but isn’t all that different than most other urban areas.

Not at all, but OKC is at the beginning of this. Other urban areas are older and more developed. OKC needs to weather the storm.

I doubt a city bribing people with a $10,000 deal to move there helps its public image. Tulsa not being able to keep up with Oklahoma City much of the time goes back to at least the Great Depression. During the 1930's, Oklahoma City gained nearly 20,000 people. Tulsa barely held on with 101 people.

it absolutely helps Tulsa/Oklahoma’s public image. All of those people now have a much more favorable opinion of Tulsa that they’re sharing with their friends/family whether they stay or not. Also a bunch of the people I know in the program have invited friends and family to visit and I haven’t heard anything but positive reviews from those crowds. Even those that wouldn’t want to live here still leave thinking “hey Tulsa is actually pretty cool”

Tulsa and OKC have tons of room for additional infill but need to modernize their land use codes to eliminate parking requirements. That limits what can be built and the amount of new housing.

KayneMo,
Thank you for this comparison. I'm pleasantly surprised at these density numbers. I suspect that this is comparing the most dense parts of OKC with the entirety of these other Western and southern cities. So this is a generous comparison. But it's as good a comparison as can be made without exhaustive analysis. So I really appreciate this contribution to the conversation.

I just plain don't believe the estimates that the city of Tulsa is shrinking, it defies logic and what is going on in the city:

Tulsa is facing a housing shortage with only limited supply of homes for sale. With interest rates going up there are more houses for sale than last year, but it is still historically very low. As part of the Improve Our Tulsa plan being voted on later this year the city is proposing a $104 million fund to improve neighborhoods and build more affordable housing.

Even with the higher interest rates there were more than 300 new homes built in the city. I know there were apartments added as well, but I can't find a number.

Tulsa's occupancy rate for rentals and apartments is above 95%

So hundreds of new housing units plus housing shortage plus historically high occupancy rates does not equal shrinking. The Census is wrong. They were badly wrong in the 2019 estimate before the census came out and they apparently have not fixed their population model for Tulsa since then.