I can accept the concept that the census may be wrong, but only for Tulsa? Was it applied differently to Tulsa? How so and why?

I'm just asking questions here.

I can accept the concept that the census may be wrong, but only for Tulsa? Was it applied differently to Tulsa? How so and why?

I'm just asking questions here.

I don't think it's just the city of Tulsa and these are still just estimates. Tulsa's seems to be wrong and the Census has a track record for getting Tulsa's estimates wrong. According to the 2019 Census estimate Tulsa had grown by just 2.4% since 2010 (and in fact was losing population year by year since 2016) but the actual 2020 census had Tulsa growing by 5.4%, since 2010, almost double the census estimate.

A funny one I have seen is Wagoner, that according to the 2020 census lost 100 people in population since 2010, but since 2020 the population there has soared by 512 people? In two years? Why? I have relatives there and it is NOT a boomtown. It's a city with very few housing starts and zero new apartments. That kind of growth is not even possible.

I think, and this is just speculation, that the census is logically guessing that people are leaving densely populated areas and moving to rural areas because of Covid. But they are wild ass guessing at where people are moving from and to. I don't think they have a handle on moving trends right now. It's also why the estimates have so many rural Oklahoma counties growing all of the sudden after losing population for decades. But when you go to those places, there is no growth.

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.

No problem, but even in the map I provided there's tons of undeveloped land and developed land with no population, so I think it's a fairly good comparison to the cities I listed. Add in 5 sq miles with no population and the density drops down to 3,526/sq mi, and 10 more sq miles with no population and the density is still just under 3,400/sq mi.

Of the 50 largest cities with a density under 10,000/sq mi, the average density is 3,962/sq mi and the median density is 3,405/sq mi. If the maximum is lowered to 50 largest cities under 8,000/sq mi, the average is now 3,640/sq mi and median is 3,278/sq mi.

I don't think it's just the city of Tulsa and these are still just estimates. Tulsa's seems to be wrong and the Census has a track record for getting Tulsa's estimates wrong. According to the 2019 Census estimate Tulsa had grown by just 2.4% since 2010 (and in fact was losing population year by year since 2016) but the actual 2020 census had Tulsa growing by 5.4%, since 2010, almost double the census estimate.

A funny one I have seen is Wagoner, that according to the 2020 census lost 100 people in population since 2010, but since 2020 the population there has soared by 512 people? In two years? Why? I have relatives there and it is NOT a boomtown. It's a city with very few housing starts and zero new apartments. That kind of growth is not even possible.

I think, and this is just speculation, that the census is logically guessing that people are leaving densely populated areas and moving to rural areas because of Covid. But they are wild ass guessing at where people are moving from and to. I don't think they have a handle on moving trends right now. It's also why the estimates have so many rural Oklahoma counties growing all of the sudden after losing population for decades. But when you go to those places, there is no growth.

Wagoner is located on the east side of Wagoner County which makes it further from Tulsa than the rest of the county, so possibly explains population loss from 2010 to 2020. Also Wagoner is a short drive from Muskogee, which has had no growth for a long time. Coweta is a shorter drive to Tulsa, yet it also had population loss from 2010 to 2020. Coweta, like Wagoner, also gained population from 2020 to 2022, helping to push Wagoner County ahead of sluggish Payne County. I guess cheaper housing has been rediscovered on the east side of Wagoner County and surely has nothing to do with covid. Don't know why it doesn't look more visible unless new housing is tucked away in the woods.

Rural parts of Oklahoma that are both remote from an Interstate and a major metro aren't going to benefit from any new trend.

No problem, but even in the map I provided there's tons of undeveloped land and developed land with no population, so I think it's a fairly good comparison to the cities I listed. Add in 5 sq miles with no population and the density drops down to 3,526/sq mi, and 10 more sq miles with no population and the density is still just under 3,400/sq mi.

Of the 50 largest cities with a density under 10,000/sq mi, the average density is 3,962/sq mi and the median density is 3,405/sq mi. If the maximum is lowered to 50 largest cities under 8,000/sq mi, the average is now 3,640/sq mi and median is 3,278/sq mi.

That's great context, thank you!

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.

The desirability of inner-city housing belies this old way of thinking. Yes, people will continue to move to Deer Creek, but have you checked out Zillow lately? The demand for inner-city housing in OKC is greater than any time in my lifetime (I'm an Xer).

You are framing this from the prism of your view of the American family, which is looking different than it has historically. Fewer people are getting married, having kids, etc. Then you have people who do distance learning. Then you have the magnet and other types of inner-city schools. Then you have people who are empty nesters choosing a more urban lifestyle.

This concept that "no one wants to move to the city because of the schools" is so dated. There are tens of thousands of people moving to inner city OKC right now.

The fact is that OKC city limits is adding more people than any place in the metro area, and the OKC metro area is adding more people than any place in the state. The demand for infill housing and housing of any kind in inner-city OKC is increasing. You are describing social demographic movement that was the norm over a decade ago.

I don't think it's just the city of Tulsa and these are still just estimates. Tulsa's seems to be wrong and the Census has a track record for getting Tulsa's estimates wrong. According to the 2019 Census estimate Tulsa had grown by just 2.4% since 2010 (and in fact was losing population year by year since 2016) but the actual 2020 census had Tulsa growing by 5.4%, since 2010, almost double the census estimate.

A funny one I have seen is Wagoner, that according to the 2020 census lost 100 people in population since 2010, but since 2020 the population there has soared by 512 people? In two years? Why? I have relatives there and it is NOT a boomtown. It's a city with very few housing starts and zero new apartments. That kind of growth is not even possible.

I think, and this is just speculation, that the census is logically guessing that people are leaving densely populated areas and moving to rural areas because of Covid. But they are wild ass guessing at where people are moving from and to. I don't think they have a handle on moving trends right now. It's also why the estimates have so many rural Oklahoma counties growing all of the sudden after losing population for decades. But when you go to those places, there is no growth.

Census conspiracy theories seem to be growing on the Internet, lol. Could it be a matter of deaths versus births versus people moving in and out?

Housing shortages don't necessarily indicate population growth. There are countless properties in cities across the US being converted to Airbnbs. People invest in condos and don't live in them. There was a massive apartment building in NYC that opened several years ago that had no residents. It was owned 100% by foreign investors.

You do make some good points but saying "The Census is Wrong" is quite the statement, and almost goes into election denial territory.

While the Census miffed on Tulsa’s healthy city population gain from 2010-2020 I don’t doubt that any growth within the city limits is limited. There just isn’t the new supply of homes for families like there is in surrounding communities to replace natural deaths and general family downsizing in other areas. Any gains in midtown, which is full of families, are likely offset by losses in older parts of south and east Tulsa. Same for downtown where hundreds of new apartment units have filled up in the past 2 years - while many may be new residents there are also plenty who moved downtown from another part of the city so there was no gain.

Denver is in a similar situation where the only new greenfield housing within city limits is out by the airport. The Stapleton infill development is nearly built-out. And while there have been thousands of new apartment units built in the city center there needs to be lots of single 20-something’s to replace families that leave the city for cheaper housing and better schools.

I think that Tulsa will again show a modest gain in 2030 but it won’t be near the same % increase as OKC until either A) there is a significant amount of new residential construction in greenfield areas like Gilcrease Hills and Fair Oaks or B) the Tulsa economy accelerates with new companies moving to town which drives additional downtown housing and midtown infill.

I was visiting an elderly woman who lives in Nichols Hills and she pointed out several houses on her block that are owned by people who do not live in them full time. This was in the part of Nichols Hills that has more normal houses.

We need a new thread for Tulsa Population. This one has been hijacked. Tulsan's apparently think that the census department is out to make them look bad, so they need their own thread to go promote their beliefs.

Complaints of 2020 census undercounts in major cities receive mixed results: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/complaints-of-2020-census-undercounts-in-major-cities-receive-mixed-results

Census conspiracy theories seem to be growing on the Internet, lol. Could it be a matter of deaths versus births versus people moving in and out?

Housing shortages don't necessarily indicate population growth. There are countless properties in cities across the US being converted to Airbnbs. People invest in condos and don't live in them. There was a massive apartment building in NYC that opened several years ago that had no residents. It was owned 100% by foreign investors.

You do make some good points but saying "The Census is Wrong" is quite the statement, and almost goes into election denial territory.

Also what defines a "housing shortage"? The number of people living in one household shifts with time based on the economy and social preferences. If Tulsa's kids are growing up, but there are less younger kids replacing them. That would be possible cause of a housing shortage, but still have a population decline.

We need a new thread for Tulsa Population. This one has been hijacked. Tulsan's apparently think that the census department is out to make them look bad, so they need their own thread to go promote their beliefs.

No one has claimed the Census is targeting Tulsa. Just discussing a pattern that occurred during the last estimation cycle leading into the 2020 census.

Also what defines a "housing shortage"? The number of people living in one household shifts with time based on the economy and social preferences. If Tulsa's kids are growing up, but there are less younger kids replacing them. That would be possible cause of a housing shortage, but still have a population decline.

I'm not sure how a "housing shortage" would be defined and it's not my claim that one exists, the city of Tulsa is putting $100 million into addressing it, so the city strongly thinks it exists.

keep in mind that although OKC does have a large city limit, a very big portion of it (like 200 square miles) is for the watershed area on NE OKC following the N Canadian River, and around Lake Stanley Draper and the other lakes/rivers. These areas are very limited in population (if any at all) and will never be populated. The primary density area of OKC (as was pointed out) is just as dense as other major cities and more dense than Tulsa. OKC is adding population in this density area, primarily in and around downtown, so this number will climb higher to 4000 shortly:

AND (to the Tulsa poster's point) OKC still has the growth areas in Canadian county. Given the watershed, OKC's developal area is around 400 square miles, similar to Los Angeles. I personally wish the city could trim off the watershed and manage it via the city (or county) water resource agency as is done in other cities/metro areas.

I have never received any census forms in over 30 yrs. I have not been counted

The primary density area of OKC (as was pointed out) is just as dense as other major cities and more dense than Tulsa. OKC is adding population in this density area, primarily in and around downtown, so this number will climb higher to 4000 shortly:

But that's NOT what this census estimate claims. Tulsa County actually outgrew Oklahoma County, and as for growth in the OKC MSA, it was focused in Canadian County.

Oklahoma County 796,567 (2020) to 802,559 (2022) +5,992, +.8%
Tulsa County 669,727 (2020) to 677,358 (2022) +7,631, +1.2%
Canadian County 154,154 (2020) to 169,149 (2022) +14,995, +9.7%

But that's NOT what this census estimate claims. Tulsa County actually outgrew Oklahoma County, and as for growth in the OKC MSA, it was focused in Canadian County.

Oklahoma County 796,567 (2020) to 802,559 (2022) +5,992, +.8%
Tulsa County 669,727 (2020) to 677,358 (2022) +7,631, +1.2%
Canadian County 154,154 (2020) to 169,149 (2022) +14,995, +9.7%

So, the census got the county numbers right, but not the city numbers?

So, the census got the county numbers right, but not the city numbers?

I'm not saying that either. I just showed what the Census was estimating, and it did not match with what Hot Rod said. He may well actually be correct.

Some of the estimates from the Census may be right, some not. There are a lot of upset cities nationwide. Some of these estimates will be based on good data, some will not. I do think Covid has changed living and commuting patterns, in ways that are not even settled yet and are likely poorly understood in the population growth/loss models by the US Census.

All I am saying with regards to Tulsa is that even before Covid the Census was under estimating Tulsa's population growth, which is a fact based on the actual 2020 Census numbers. The under estimation from before the Census seems to be continuing and the Census now with Covid has an even more challenging job getting estimates correct. The Census may well be undercounting OKC as well.

I looked at the estimates for Oklahoma and I have some great examples of stupid estimates:

I showed the city of Wagoner before, which supposedly was the one of the fastest growing cities IN THE STATE growing by 6.7% in just two years when visually going to Wagoner there is no growth to speak of. At all.

Wagoner County is worse. The Census has Wagoner County adding more people that Oklahoma County. 5,265 people since 2020 as compared to 4,359 new residents in Oklahoma County. I don’t buy it. No way. The growing area of Wagoner County is the eastern 1/3 of Broken Arrow in that county. But from what I can tell and see, the fastest growing part of Broken Arrow is in south Broken Arrow, in Tulsa County. The Census would have you believe that the eastern 1/3 of Broken Arrow and the city of Wagoner are growing at a faster rate than Jenks, Bixby, Owasso and most of the rest of Broken Arrow? Even if Tulsa lost a small amount of people that’s laughable. There is no way Wagoner County is growing that fast. And growing more in total numbers than Edmond and the part of Oklahoma City in Oklahoma County? It's just not correct.

Another example. The Census has Canadian County adding 13,724 people, MAYBE that’s true. Those of you that live there, you tell me. But what I can tell you I don’t believe is that McClain County added 3,395 people, just under the 4,359 estimated new people in Oklahoma County. The Census has McClain growing 8.1% in two years, second fastest in the state behind Canadian. I don’t buy that at all. Do you? Oklahoma City and Edmond are just barely growing more than New Castle and Purcell? Hell no.

I looked at the estimates for Oklahoma and I have some great examples of stupid estimates:

I showed the city of Wagoner before, which supposedly was the one of the fastest growing cities IN THE STATE growing by 6.7% in just two years when visually going to Wagoner there is no growth to speak of. At all.

Wagoner County is worse. The Census has Wagoner County adding more people that Oklahoma County. 5,265 people since 2020 as compared to 4,359 new residents in Oklahoma County. I don’t buy it. No way. The growing area of Wagoner County is the eastern 1/3 of Broken Arrow in that county. But from what I can tell and see, the fastest growing part of Broken Arrow is in south Broken Arrow, in Tulsa County. The Census would have you believe that the eastern 1/3 of Broken Arrow and the city of Wagoner are growing at a faster rate than Jenks, Bixby, Owasso and most of the rest of Broken Arrow? Even if Tulsa lost a small amount of people that’s laughable. There is no way Wagoner County is growing that fast. And growing more in total numbers than Edmond and the part of Oklahoma City in Oklahoma County? It's just not correct.

Another example. The Census has Canadian County adding 13,724 people, MAYBE that’s true. Those of you that live there, you tell me. But what I can tell you I don’t believe is that McClain County added 3,395 people, just under the 4,359 estimated new people in Oklahoma County. The Census has McClain growing 8.1% in two years, second fastest in the state behind Canadian. I don’t buy that at all. Do you? Oklahoma City and Edmond are just barely growing more than New Castle and Purcell? Hell no.

You are currently trying to use your subjective experience to overcome something that has an objective basis. What you can "tell and see" is not anywhere close to an objective measure of the population of a town. I think it is fair to say that some inconsistencies occurred during the last census. I think it is also fair to advocate for another census that is conducted in a more through manner. You are coming off like a biased TV commentator using very leading language that is not as compelling as you think it is.

Another example. The Census has Canadian County adding 13,724 people, MAYBE that’s true. Those of you that live there, you tell me. But what I can tell you I don’t believe is that McClain County added 3,395 people, just under the 4,359 estimated new people in Oklahoma County. The Census has McClain growing 8.1% in two years, second fastest in the state behind Canadian. I don’t buy that at all. Do you? Oklahoma City and Edmond are just barely growing more than New Castle and Purcell? Hell no.

That actually wouldn't shock me at all.

One really critical thing to remember about the census is that the degree to which foreigners who reside in an area without legal documentation are willing to count themselves (or people counting them on their behalf) on a census can have a pretty massive impact on the numbers that come in. You can bet that there are thousands of people who were not counted in most urban areas, so when we talk about increasing density in certain areas, remember that population density from reports is not likely accurate in comparison to many other areas. I'd wager a guess that OKC probably has a larger population of undocumented residents than a lot of eastern and northern counter parts, but of course probably less than CA/AZ/NM/TX

Velocity article: https://www.velocityokc.com/blog/economy/the-numbers-don-t-lie-lots-of-people-show-interest-in-moving-to-oklahoma/?back=super_blog

No one has claimed the Census is targeting Tulsa. Just discussing a pattern that occurred during the last estimation cycle leading into the 2020 census.
In a way that implies targeting of Tulsa.

Tulsans now trying to turn this into a thread that shows them a victim.

If everyone is intent on trying to keep this an OKC vs Tulsa thing, they need to just go drive all around Tulsa and then OKC. You will see the difference in obvious momentum at this time. OKC area is very robust. Let this thread deal with its growth without Tulsans getting defensive.

In a way that implies targeting of Tulsa.

Tulsans now trying to turn this into a thread that shows them a victim.

If everyone is intent on trying to keep this an OKC vs Tulsa thing, they need to just go drive all around Tulsa and then OKC. You will see the difference in obvious momentum at this time. OKC area is very robust. Let this thread deal with its growth without Tulsans getting defensive.

You're misinterpreting people's posts. No one is saying that Tulsa is the center of a targeted undercounting scheme, just that the estimates were incorrect last time. Other cities have experienced the same thing.

This isn't a OKC vs Tulsa thing, as much as you want it to be. OKC metro will always be larger, and more than likely grow faster for the foreseeable future. That's good. It's the state capital, has a huge footprint and has fantastic momentum. Tulsa metro is growing steadily as well, but doesn't have the intrinsic growth factors OKC benefits from.

No need to be divisive on this topic. I've lived in both cities, they're very different and both have a lot to offer. It's a positive for Oklahoma that both of it's major metros are growing.

Interesting take. Dallas/FW with 34M people is almost unbelievable.

https://dallas.culturemap.com/news/city-life/dfw-biggest-population-2100-movebuddha/

Don't buy it. Extrapolating this current growth rate out that far is irresponsible and unprofessional.

This is going to be a long 'wait and see,' period.

Interesting take. Dallas/FW with 34M people is almost unbelievable.

https://dallas.culturemap.com/news/city-life/dfw-biggest-population-2100-movebuddha/

Won't happen, people in DFW already complaining its too crowded. And old dominant suburbs like Plano, Richardson, Arlington, & Grand Prairie are maxed out and slowing down growth wise.

I wonder what Oklahoma City's projected population is. But, like a couple others have said, I don't buy it. My primary reason for not buying is the demographic problems we're starting to have. Lower birth rates and an aging population mean that many cities will stagnate in growth in the coming decades.

I think 3 million is the sweet spot for OKC metro, maybe 1.5 million in the city limits. Beyond that and OKC loses the rural and suburban “appeal” in a very big way. We’re half way there, 710k city and 1.5m metro, so basically double today.

I think 3 million is the sweet spot for OKC metro, maybe 1.5 million in the city limits. Beyond that and OKC loses the rural and suburban “appeal” in a very big way. We’re half way there, 710k city and 1.5m metro, so basically double today.

That only works well if there is a good commuter rail system in place along the Edmond-OKC-Moore-Norman corridor and some type of east-west corridor as well. There is no way for the metro to handle that many people without a larger investment in rail transit.

That being said I would imagine there will be more growth on the east and NE side of the metro with the highway expansion there to counter the recent growth on the west side. I think growth stalls on the north side in favor of more growth in the south and SW metro around Norman, which in itself could be a city of 250k

I wonder what Oklahoma City's projected population is. But, like a couple others have said, I don't buy it. My primary reason for not buying is the demographic problems we're starting to have. Lower birth rates and an aging population mean that many cities will stagnate in growth in the coming decades.

All the more reason to allow more immigration. Also, the cities will be the last place to feel this pinch. The rural and exurban areas will see this pinch happen first (and in fact already are).

All the more reason to allow more immigration. Also, the cities will be the last place to feel this pinch. The rural and exurban areas will see this pinch happen first (and in fact already are).

I'm all for significant immigration because it's necessary to sustain economic growth, just not undocumented, uncontrolled immigration.

I'm all for significant immigration because it's necessary to sustain economic growth, just not undocumented, uncontrolled immigration.

bingo

We don't need population growth just for the sake of trying to maintain unsustainable growth. What we need are sustainable cities based on sustainable economics. For example, stop deficit spending based on the idea that debt incurred today can be paid back in the future because there will be more people to pay it. Simply living within our civic means would solve the problem.

I'm all for significant immigration because it's necessary to sustain economic growth, just not undocumented, uncontrolled immigration.

This is a catch 22. One reason we have so many undocumented immigrants is that we don't have an easier path for legal immigration. We need to simplify and streamline the pathway for legal immigration.

Of course, whenever such policy is introduced in Congress, the xenophopes come out and use hate radio and extreme political rhetoric to kill it. One example was when George W was president and worked with John McCain to introduce an immigration reform bill. Rush Limbaugh started screaming about it nonstop, riling up the angry people who don't understand the issues involved.

The point is, we need immigration to have a functional labor force, something the xenophobes either don't understand or simply ignore.

Nothing is ever as simple as a bumper sticker. Issues like immigration in particular are nuanced. Trafficking in fearful and hateful rhetoric is easier than discussing complex issues.

One irony here is that rural areas in particular are declining in population, and would benefit the most from easier legal immigration, but are often the most virulently anti-immigrant.

Another massive irony is that these same areas rely desperately on illegal immigrant labor to prop up their agricultural economic base.

We talk about immigration and the need for it which is purely from an economic benefit; let's get serious, if we need people to help harvest our crops, then why not open up a patch to citizenship.

Don't forget our state's moto; 'Labor omnia vincit.'

That only works well if there is a good commuter rail system in place along the Edmond-OKC-Moore-Norman corridor and some type of east-west corridor as well. There is no way for the metro to handle that many people without a larger investment in rail transit.

That being said I would imagine there will be more growth on the east and NE side of the metro with the highway expansion there to counter the recent growth on the west side. I think growth stalls on the north side in favor of more growth in the south and SW metro around Norman, which in itself could be a city of 250k

All of those transportation options are planned and in final design (OKC RTD and the SE freeway/turnpike extensions). I agree more infrastructure is needed for the E metro and that’s coming, but the city could density without major additions and be just fine.

I wonder what Oklahoma City's projected population is. But, like a couple others have said, I don't buy it. My primary reason for not buying is the demographic problems we're starting to have. Lower birth rates and an aging population mean that many cities will stagnate in growth in the coming decades.

I was just listening to a report this morning that the census released the median age in the US for 2022. The number was 38.9 years, which is a record high. 17 states now have a median age over 40.

Lower birth rates are happening everywhere. Kids are too expensive to have. So many families are deciding on either no more or none at all. I can't blame them one bit.

Lower birth rates are happening everywhere. Kids are too expensive to have. So many families are deciding on either no more or none at all. I can't blame them one bit.

It's also part of a broader sociological phenomenon, demographic transition theory. In general, as societies become more economically developed, their birth rates shrink for a few reasons:
- Women marry later as they pursue education and work, this leads to women having fewer children
- Infant mortality decreases, which leads to families "needing" to have fewer kids as more make it to adulthood and also kids do not need to work to provide for the family
- Better healthcare produces better access to contraception and other family planning impacts

This is why populations are declining in most of the developed world, why China's population will continue to shrink as it becomes more economically developed, and why Africa is going to be the continent with the most population growth over the course of this century.

IMO, OKC is well-positioned for continued growth due to the following factors:

1) Relatively close to DFW, Austin, and Houston, all of which are rapidly growing and becoming significantly more expensive as time goes on.
2) Connected to the national electric grid, which could eventually be looked at as a major advantage relative to DFW, Austin, and Houston if events such as the February 2021 breakdown of the Texas grid become more common.
3) Very favorable long-term water management compared to places such as Denver, Las Vegas, and Phoenix.

Oklahoma's growth trajectory will likely mirror Tennessee with OKC/Tulsa combined as an economic engine with a population similar to Nashville. Like Tennessee, rural areas in the western counties will continue to depopulate with southern counties benefitting from the northward expansion of DFW, similar to SE TN counties because of Atlanta. Oklahoma is in a favorable Mid-South climate with plenty of water in the eastern sections, though drought is more common here and could be more severe with climate change.

IMO, OKC is well-positioned for continued growth due to the following factors:

1) Relatively close to DFW, Austin, and Houston, all of which are rapidly growing and becoming significantly more expensive as time goes on.
2) Connected to the national electric grid, which could eventually be looked at as a major advantage relative to DFW, Austin, and Houston if events such as the February 2021 breakdown of the Texas grid become more common.
3) Very favorable long-term water management compared to places such as Denver, Las Vegas, and Phoenix.

Excellent points. It would be great if OKC were added to the national high-speed rail network as well, along with continuing to add better air service options.

I would argue that an even larger factor might be that as we've moved from a high-trust society to a low-trust society and become even more individualized over the last 30-40 years, it has become more and more difficult to cultivate the kind of support system that once made raising children a more manageable task. "It takes a village to raise a child" is a proverb for a reason.

This seems correct now having a kid with only a single grandparent in the vicinity. We also don't do church. We have some close friends with Children and we're financially secure and "older" parents, but holy crap it's hard to imagine taking on a 2nd

2022 metro area population estimates show OKC and Tulsa with healthy growth. For the top 55 metros from 2020-2022 OKC is ranked 13th with a 2.06% change and Tulsa is ranked 16th with a 1.66% change. Austin was #1 with 5.3% growth followed by Raleigh-Durham at 4.71%, Jacksonville at 3.90%, Dallas/Ft Worth at 3.62% and San Antonio at 3.39%.

OKC 2022 metro population: 1,459,380
Tulsa 2022 metro population: 1,034,123
Combined: 2,493,503

2022 metro area population estimates show OKC and Tulsa with healthy growth. For the top 55 metros from 2020-2022 OKC is ranked 13th with a 2.06% change and Tulsa is ranked 16th with a 1.66% change. Austin was #1 with 5.3% growth followed by Raleigh-Durham at 4.71%, Jacksonville at 3.90%, Dallas/Ft Worth at 3.62% and San Antonio at 3.39%.

OKC 2022 metro population: 1,459,380
Tulsa 2022 metro population: 1,034,123
Combined: 2,493,503

Thanks for these figures 2,493,503 in 2022 estimates represent 62% of the state's 4,019,800 population figure concentrated in the two largest metropolitan areas.

Thanks for these figures 2,493,503 in 2022 estimates represent 62% of the state's 4,019,800 population figure concentrated in the two largest metropolitan areas.

2022 Oklahoma City CSA: 1,532,913
2022 Tulsa CSA: 1,153,719
Combined: 2,686,632 - 67% of total

Thanks for the numbers. Holding that rate steady for the OKC metro until 2030 would show an increase of 10.73% from 2020 to 2030. That would be the lowest growth rate since 1930-1940 at 10.1%. Not saying that's the number we'll be at in 2030, but that's the start we are off to mathematically, at least. Not what I would have expected.

Thanks for the numbers. Holding that rate steady for the OKC metro until 2030 would show an increase of 10.73% from 2020 to 2030. That would be the lowest growth rate since 1930-1940 at 10.1%. Not saying that's the number we'll be at in 2030, but that's the start we are off to mathematically, at least. Not what I would have expected.

100,000 or if a million is 10%. 25,000 out of 100,000 is 25%. See where I'm going with this?

I deleted a ton of completely political posts about inflation.

For those that keep injecting that kind of crap into every conceivable topic, you are going to get banned.

Thanks for the numbers. Holding that rate steady for the OKC metro until 2030 would show an increase of 10.73% from 2020 to 2030. That would be the lowest growth rate since 1930-1940 at 10.1%. Not saying that's the number we'll be at in 2030, but that's the start we are off to mathematically, at least. Not what I would have expected.

Yes, very disappointing.

I've made the point over and over again that a huge percentage of OKC's growth is due to people moving from small towns in the state. At some point, that number has to slow down simply because all those rural areas are shrinking in population.

Yeah cannibalizing from rural OK is not a long term growth strategy. There’s a massive demographic sorting going on right now as folks with means are looking for states that align with their politics (not trying to get political!). We have a lot going for us - low cost of living, growing downtown core, great local leadership - we just need to overcome our broader national reputation.

If it’s all about politics and the associated national reputation, why is Texas growing so much faster than we are?

Thanks for the numbers. Holding that rate steady for the OKC metro until 2030 would show an increase of 10.73% from 2020 to 2030. That would be the lowest growth rate since 1930-1940 at 10.1%. Not saying that's the number we'll be at in 2030, but that's the start we are off to mathematically, at least. Not what I would have expected.

Compared to the Top 55 largest metros the growth in OKC and Tulsa is pretty decent, in the Top 16. Slower growth is going to be a National issue that we’ll all have to deal with over the next few decades unless immigration really picks up again.

If it’s all about politics and the associated national reputation, why is Texas growing so much faster than we are?

Because Texas (and Florida) is the main destination of choice for disaffected conservatives from blue states. That’s the crowd OK could court too if our reputation and state institutions (education, healthcare, taxes) were similar.

That being said I think OKC will see a bit of a boost in the middle of the decade as the Texas metros get too expensive/clogged for some folks.

Because Texas (and Florida) is the main destination of choice for disaffected conservatives from blue states. That’s the crowd OK could court too if our reputation and state institutions (education, healthcare, taxes) were similar.

That being said I think OKC will see a bit of a boost in the middle of the decade as the Texas metros get too expensive/clogged for some folks.

That’s always been my thought/hope as well.

Among a ton of other reasons, those states are just geographically superior to Oklahoma and they can offer things the state just can’t. Places with coasts > Places without coasts to the vast majority of people on planet Earth.

When you’re a landlocked state like OK, you have to do great things around the margins to attract people instead. However, not only has the state not done that, they’ve made a lot of their institutions worse and less marketable to people.

Among a ton of other reasons, those states are just geographically superior to Oklahoma and they can offer things the state just can’t. Places with coasts > Places without coasts to the vast majority of people on planet Earth.

When you’re a landlocked state like OK, you have to do great things around the margins to attract people instead. However, not only has the state not done that, they’ve made a lot of their institutions worse and less marketable to people.

What coast is Dallas/ft worth, Austin, or San Antonio on? Most of the population centers within Texas are as landlocked as Oklahoma.