Great news. It also looks like we are bigger than Vegas, Louisville, and yes, Portland.

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.

So OKC in 2014 has got be close to 620k, while Tulsa will finally break 400k an Norman should be over 120k. Wonder what Broken Arrows stats are? *edit* BA is at 103,500 for 2013.

Portland definitley has us beat in the number of feminist bookstores.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9r2o5ZnSHo&feature=player_detailpage

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

Here's a link to the article. OKC experienced approximately 22% growth over the last decade and 5.1% growth over the last three years. Impressive.

"Decade of the City"? (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/usanow/2014/05/22/census-cities-population-growth/9377901/)

But Austin has experienced 32% growth over the last decade. That's fairly insane, particularly when you consider how their transportation infrastructure is so growth limiting. OKC can continue to grow fairly comfortably by comparison.

What is the threshold # percentage wise to be considered a boom town? Population wise and time wise? I thought Pete said 20% over a period of a decade?

What is the threshold # percentage wise to be considered a boom town? Population wise and time wise? I thought Pete said 20% over a period of a decade?

Well, I tend to think the term "booming" is just semantics. I would politely disagree with the 20% threshold considering thats based off of last decade's growth in this country, which average a hair under 10% or about 1% a year. So 20% would just be doubled. The US is now only growing about 0.7%/year and mobility among the US population is at a multi-decade low, so I think anything over double that would be considered booming.

Another way to look at it is any city that's in the top 15%-20% of cities in growth in terms of percentage. Out of the 293 cities in the US with populations over 100K, OKC is roughly in the top 14%

Here's a link to the article. OKC experienced approximately 22% growth over the last decade and 5.1% growth over the last three years. Impressive.

"Decade of the City"? (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/usanow/2014/05/22/census-cities-population-growth/9377901/)

But Austin has experienced 32% growth over the last decade. That's fairly insane, particularly when you consider how their transportation infrastructure is so growth limiting. OKC can continue to grow fairly comfortably by comparison.

It says OKC experienced 20.1 percent growth.

Also, Raleigh killed it at 49%, followed by Fort Worth at 48%, then Charlotte at 38%.

I'm puzzled as to how Nashville is the main protagonist of that article when it had average growth figures, including just 16% between 2000-2013.

It's pretty well known that OKC isn't experiencing the type of crazy growth that Austin, DFW, Charlotte, Raleigh, etc are. However, this city's growth is still very healthy and remarkable. It says a lot that OKC's growth is ahead of certain media darlings like Portland, Denver, Minneapolis, and others.

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.

So true, you're witness to a lot of redevelopment inside the core.

Oklahoma City has a lot of unoccupied land. Most of the land that is densely populated centers around the core of the city as growth continues outward. Was told that OKC continued to occupy all that land for tax purposes for which the county, city and state benefits. You may have a similar situation in Kentucky with Louisville & Jefferson County's agreement. These unoccupied lands are a future investment.


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

It says OKC experienced 20.1 percent growth.Also, Raleigh killed it at 49%, followed by Fort Worth at 48%, then Charlotte at 38%.

I'm puzzled as to how Nashville is the main protagonist of that article when it had average growth figures, including just 16% between 2000-2013.

Not to nitpick here, but it says OKC is 20.8%...basically 21% rounded.

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


Based on these new numbers, we jumped Louisville and Portland, and closing in on Baltimore.

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

I am not so sure about de-annexing any more as much as I am about making it off limits to development. One thing we know for sure, we don't have enough water to develop that land as single family homes.

Not to nitpick here, but it says OKC is 20.8%...basically 21% rounded.

Sorry I misread to be 21.8%.

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.

There is a huge amount of the incorporated OKC which doesn't have streets and infrastructure already built. If OKC didn't encompass those areas, do you think there wouldn't be basic streets and highways outside of the "city" anyway?

Gasp! 610,613 people divided by 607 square miles means OKC finally has over 1,000 people/square mile!
1,006/sq mi to be more exact. :wink:

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.

2013 Population estimates for all Oklahoma towns here: Census rarity: Tulsa 2013 population change outpaces Broken Arrow - Tulsa World: Newshomepage2 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/newshomepage2/census-rarity-tulsa-population-change-outpaces-broken-arrow/article_b02fc2b2-1c24-52b2-b25f-c78907a73a36.html#user-comment-area)

Enid goes over 50,000.

The diversity and cultural vibrancy in Portland is unmatched anywhere in the South except for maybe austin.

Except for Oklahoma City....


Portland diversity:

The census reported the city as 76.1% White (444,254 people), 7.1% Asian (41,448), 6.3% Black or African American (36,778), 1.0% Native American (5,838), 0.5% Pacific Islander (2,919), 4.7% belonging to two or more racial groups (24,437) and 5.0% from other races (28,987).[52] 9.4% were Hispanic or Latino, of any race (54,840). Whites not of Hispanic origin made up 72.2% of the total population.[52]

Oklahoma City diversity:

According to the 2010 U.S. Census, the racial composition of Oklahoma City was as follows:[52]

White American: 62.7% (56.7% Non-Hispanic Whites)
African American: 15.1%
Native American: 3.5%
Asian American: 4.0% (1.7% Vietnamese, 0.7% Indian, 0.4% Chinese, 0.2% Korean, 0.2% Filipino, 0.1% Japanese)
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander: 0.1%
Some other race: 9.4%
Two or more races: 5.2%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 17.2% (14.2% Mexican, 0.7% Guatemalan, 0.4% Puerto Rican, 0.2% Honduran, 0.1% Salvadoran)[53]

It's a very big stereotypical misconception that OKC is not diverse.

2013 Population estimates for all Oklahoma towns here: Census rarity: Tulsa 2013 population change outpaces Broken Arrow - Tulsa World: Newshomepage2 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/newshomepage2/census-rarity-tulsa-population-change-outpaces-broken-arrow/article_b02fc2b2-1c24-52b2-b25f-c78907a73a36.html#user-comment-area)

Enid goes over 50,000.

Enid - 50,725

We won't know the accuracy of these figures until the 2020 census; however Oklahoma City continues to outpace Tulsa in city & metropolitan population figures; both cities experienced moderate and manageable growth:

City population figures
2013 Estimates:
Oklahoma City 610,613 Tulsa 398,121 difference: 212,492
2010 Corporate city population:
Oklahoma City 579,999 Tulsa 391,906 difference: 188,093

Metropolitan population figures
2013 Estimates
Oklahoma City 1,319,677 Tulsa 961,561 difference: 358,116
2010 Metropolitan population
Oklahoma City 1,252,987 Tulsa 937,478 difference: 315,509

Census rarity: Tulsa 2013 population change outpaces Broken Arrow - Tulsa World: Newshomepage2 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/newshomepage2/census-rarity-tulsa-population-change-outpaces-broken-arrow/article_b02fc2b2-1c24-52b2-b25f-c78907a73a36.html#user-comment-area)

List of Metropolitan Statistical Areas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas)

That's got to be good news for Enid especially since one of their largest employers (Continental Resources) relocated to OKC.


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

It's a very big stereotypical misconception that OKC is not diverse.

I'm rather surprised the Native American percentage wasn't higher.

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

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

Here's a quick drawing I did, this was pretty fun to do!
http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/general-civic-issues/7915d1400806206-population-growth-okc-okc-redrawn-limits.jpg
I included Bethany, Warr Acres, The Village, and Nichols Hills in the drawing just for simplicity.
Population estimate is 486,000 in 155.8 square miles which = 3,119/sq mi.
Take out Lake Hefner area and then it's 151.9 sq mi.
Take out the enclaves and their populations and the new data becomes approximately 442,500 in 139.4 sq mi which = 3,174/sq mi.

Here's a quick drawing I did, this was pretty fun to do!
http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/general-civic-issues/7915d1400806206-population-growth-okc-okc-redrawn-limits.jpg
I included Bethany, Warr Acres, The Village, and Nichols Hills in the drawing just for simplicity.
Population estimate is 486,000 in 155.8 square miles which = 3,119/sq mi.
Take out Lake Hefner area and then it's 151.9 sq mi.
Take out the enclaves and their populations and the new data becomes approximately 442,500 in 139.4 sq mi which = 3,174/sq mi.

Pretty good drawing. I would definitely include the Deer Creek area and the West Moore area though. A lot of people live in those areas and they are pretty affluent by Oklahoma standards. In fact, one of the wealthiest zip codes in the state is south of I-240 in SW OKC. Even it including those areas would drop the population density slightly, they are essential.

Sometimes I think there are people out there who actually think OKC has 610k people spread out over the entire 600+ square miles, like there is a home or business every half mile! But in reality OKC's population( 75%-85% ) is in the core notated above! I wish National retailers would take this into account

This de-annex movement is pretty much counter to population growth. Here we have places like the beloved Charlotte joining with the county to make their numbers larger and in OKC we have people suggesting making the city limits smaller. There are people living in those areas so the numbers will be smaller. While I don't necessarily agree with the opinion of another poster, it does seem to make more sense. That person suggested not de-annexing those areas but rather take this city ownership and control growth to certain areas. One thing that is so bizarre about how this city does things is that they continue to build Northwest and neglect the rest of the city. If this continues, downtown will be considered Southeast. Why not make the development more evenly distributed? Yes we have a lot of infill to do but why is it necessary to keep going Northwest? If the city can urge certain kinds of growth in various areas, then they can urge a little of that NW momentum on the East side. We have always been the step children. By the time I-40 gets widened to three lanes at Tinker, the West side will be widened all the way to Clinton... :) I am kidding but anyway, just some thoughts.

Sometimes I think there are people out there who actually think OKC has 610k people spread out over the entire 600+ square miles, like there is a home or business every half mile! But in reality OKC's population( 75%-85% ) is in the core notated above! I wish National retailers would take this into account

I agree. If you read the City-Data forums they like to trash OKC based on the official density figure. As Kayne pointed out though, the density is not to shabby especially for a Southern city if you don't count all the rural, undeveloped land.

I'm rather surprised the Native American percentage wasn't higher.

That number may be those who are Native American alone, not including those are also part Native American.
Using both alone and part Native American, OKC is actually 4th in proportion of Native Americans among large US cities.
1st is Anchorage at 12.4%
2nd - Tulsa 9.2%
3rd - Norman 8.1%
4th - OKC 6.3%
5th - Billings, MT 6%
=5th - Albuquerque 6%
7th - Green Bay 5.4%
8th - Tacoma 4%
9th - Tempe 3.9%
10th - Tucson 3.8%

Good Morning, Anchorage! Top 10 Cities With Highest Percentage Natives - ICTMN.com (http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/08/01/anchorage-leads-top-10-cities-highest-percentage-natives-150684)

This de-annex movement is pretty much counter to population growth. Here we have places like the beloved Charlotte joining with the county to make their numbers larger and in OKC we have people suggesting making the city limits smaller. There are people living in those areas so the numbers will be smaller. While I don't necessarily agree with the opinion of another poster, it does seem to make more sense. That person suggested not de-annexing those areas but rather take this city ownership and control growth to certain areas. One thing that is so bizarre about how this city does things is that they continue to build Northwest and neglect the rest of the city. If this continues, downtown will be considered Southeast. Why not make the development more evenly distributed? Yes we have a lot of infill to do but why is it necessary to keep going Northwest? If the city can urge certain kinds of growth in various areas, then they can urge a little of that NW momentum on the East side. We have always been the step children. By the time I-40 gets widened to three lanes at Tinker, the West side will be widened all the way to Clinton... :) I am kidding but anyway, just some thoughts.

Louisville is a city/county consolidation. Charlotte is not. Prior to Louisville's consolidation, I believe they only had 200k and change living in the city limits. OKC could deannex without shedding a huge amount of people if it drew the boundaries right. Kayne's example is a little too aggressive, but there are beneficial ways to do it.

As far as continuing to build Northwest, that is largely because of school district boundaries. NE OKC will never seen mass infill as long as it continues to be in the OKC school district. Where you currently are seeing a lot of suburban growth is in far NW OKC, in the Deer Creek district and in SW OKC, in the Moore district.

As far as continuing to build Northwest, that is largely because of school district boundaries. NE OKC will never seen mass infill as long as it continues to be in the OKC school district. Where you currently are seeing a lot of suburban growth is in far NW OKC, in the Deer Creek district and in SW OKC, in the Moore district.

I'm curious where the growth is mainly occurring, which we won't know until the next Census. I suspect it's in the areas you mention though due to new subdivisions and better schools. Though infill is another piece in the downtown area and surrounding neighborhoods.

Per the article Tulsa has seen new growth in eastern areas in the Broken Arrow school district, as well as undeveloped areas in the Jenks district in SW Tulsa. These areas represent some of the last undeveloped land in the city limits outside of Gilcrease Hills in NW Tulsa. Midtown infill and downtown residential also likely played a role in the modest growth since 2010. Both cities will have substantial gains in the downtown census tracts in 2020.

I'm curious where the growth is mainly occurring, which we won't know until the next Census. I suspect it's in the areas you mention though due to new subdivisions and better schools. Though infill is another piece in the downtown area and surrounding neighborhoods.

I would imagine for families its primarily centered around Deer Creek and West Moore. For young professionals its focused on downtown. Both play a part of the progress of this city.

Huge growth for OKC is in Canadian County. Everyone thinks it's Yukon, but the majority is OKC. IIRC, Canadian County was one of the faster growing counties, and the majority is in West OKC.

Everything South of I-40 is OKC city limits....lots of growth out there.

Huge growth for OKC is in Canadian County. Everyone thinks it's Yukon, but the majority is OKC. IIRC, Canadian County was one of the faster growing counties, and the majority is in West OKC.

Everything South of I-40 is OKC city limits....lots of growth out there.

While there is definitely a lot of new construction out that way, one thing that's stuck out to me was how much of the metro's growth is being captured in Oklahoma County.

In fact when I looked it up, Oklahoma County accounts for about 55% of OKC MSA's growth from 2011-2013 vs around 41% during the last decade (2001-2010). Whereas Canadian County accounts for about 16% of the MSA's growth in the past 3 years vs 20% in the previous decade.

If I were a betting man, I would beg the fastest growing areas in the city in downtown, with a close 2nd the NW side that lies in Deer Creek school district.

I am not so sure about de-annexing any more as much as I am about making it off limits to development. One thing we know for sure, we don't have enough water to develop that land as single family homes.


Kerry, after all the discussions we have had about this, I'm glad to see that you're gradually coming around a little. :)

It's interesting that the Lawton population dropped by about 1,400. That has to be due to some downsizing at Fort Sill.

One of the primary factors that drives our present suburb centric development is the public school systems. Many people do not like to hear that, but it is the truth for many people with kids. As much as I would like our development patterns to change, I understand the reasons to move to Edmond, Mustang, Yukon, etc. As the current housing inventory is reduced by new people, the developers will naturally look to capitalize on the preferred locations for new residents and that will usually mean the next ring out. I did the same thing for my kids - I went to the place I believed they would get the best education and maybe once they have graduated, I will be able to be on the next wave of people returning downtown. I respect people that walked the walk better that I did, but honestly I would make the same decision.

It is a chicken and egg proposition to correct it - the schools need to be improved to entice more people to stay or relocate within OKC PS boundaries but they need the revenue from people returning to the district to do so. Which comes first? MAPS4Schools was nice for the buildings but the perception of OKCPS did not improve as much as may have been hoped. John Rex Elementary is a nice step forward and OKCPS has some good schools like Classen, but the overall system is subpar compared to most suburban schools. This issue will only become more important as OKC's population grows and I have not been able to come up with a solution for the quandary.

Maybe the best answer is a development boundary. It makes a lot of sense. Combine that with an incentive package for developers to refurbish the inner neighborhoods and preserve the current city limits for future growth when the population is high enough to make it necessary. And as we decide to develop the outer areas in the future, apply better design standards to those areas based on lessons learned over the past half century.

It's interesting that the Lawton population dropped by about 1,400. That has to be due to some downsizing at Fort Sill.

Not surprising if you are from there like me. Lawton has stayed around 100-130 k since I was in High school. 1972. Nothing there but fort sill. Most of my classmates and other young people flee there as soon as they can. You will find them in Dallas, Houston or N C like me.

Not surprising if you are from there like me. Lawton has stayed around 100-130 k since I was in High school. 1972. Nothing there but fort sill. Most of my classmates and other young people flee there as soon as they can. You will find them in Dallas, Houston or N C like me.

Fort Smith, Arkansas has also stayed around 80,000 since I can remember. There is pretty much nothing there these days. It's a town though where a majority of the young people hate it and talk about leaving but few actually do. My guess is Lawton is somewhat similar.

Actually Ft. Smith has grown to about 87,000 and the Metropolitan area is about 279,000. However, they are generous with the "area". The metropolitan area is also growing despite the fact they lost some industrial due to the national recession and lost a major retirement home development company. The average income is pretty good there as the national employers there pay pretty decently and they make up a pretty large segment.

Actually Ft. Smith has grown to about 87,000 and the Metropolitan area is about 279,000. However, they are generous with the "area". The metropolitan area is also growing despite the fact they lost some industrial due to the national recession and lost a major retirement home development company. The average income is pretty good there as the national employers there pay pretty decently and they make up a pretty large segment.

Daily commutes to Ft Smith are the norm from as far west as Checotah or as far east as Clarksville AR. It has become a popular retirement destination as well. The town also shares a lot of cultural similarities with OKC and identifies more with Oklahoma than the rest of Arkansas.

I am not so sure about de-annexing any more as much as I am about making it off limits to development. One thing we know for sure, we don't have enough water to develop that land as single family homes.Kerry, after all the discussions we have had about this, I'm glad to see that you're gradually coming around a little. :)

Education never ends :)

OKC should look into a program to buy development rights for rural land. Just like mineral rights can be sold, so can development rights. This would allow current owners to cash in on the development potential of their land without having to sell it, and then when they do sell it the program ensures nothing other than a farm can ever be built there.

Actually Ft. Smith has grown to about 87,000 and the Metropolitan area is about 279,000. However, they are generous with the "area". The metropolitan area is also growing despite the fact they lost some industrial due to the national recession and lost a major retirement home development company. The average income is pretty good there as the national employers there pay pretty decently and they make up a pretty large segment.

NW Arkansas (Springdale-Bentonville-Rogers-Fayetteville) is still growing rapidly, 6.21% since 2010. The metro pop. in the 4 counties adjacent to Oklahoma in Arkansas and Missouri is just under 500,000. That area is the economic engine for Arkansas.

Pretty good drawing. I would definitely include the Deer Creek area and the West Moore area though. A lot of people live in those areas and they are pretty affluent by Oklahoma standards. In fact, one of the wealthiest zip codes in the state is south of I-240 in SW OKC. Even it including those areas would drop the population density slightly, they are essential.

Here it is redrawn to include those areas!
http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/general-civic-issues/7933d1401056893-population-growth-okc-okc-limits-redrawn-2.jpg
Again, taking out the area of Lake Hefner and the enclaves and their populations, it comes out to be approximately 514,000 in 175.6 sq mi which = 2,927/sq mi.

It's interesting that the Lawton population dropped by about 1,400. That has to be due to some downsizing at Fort Sill.

Otherwise, except for the Altus area, the western half of Oklahoma, overall, is adding population. The towns on I-40 are doing well. The energy boom is still booming.

Daily commutes to Ft Smith are the norm from as far west as Checotah or as far east as Clarksville AR. It has become a popular retirement destination as well. The town also shares a lot of cultural similarities with OKC and identifies more with Oklahoma than the rest of Arkansas.

So does the Ft Smith commute overwhelm the one stoplight in Checotah?

Not surprising if you are from there like me. Lawton has stayed around 100-130 k since I was in High school. 1972. Nothing there but fort sill. Most of my classmates and other young people flee there as soon as they can. You will find them in Dallas, Houston or N C like me.

Yeah, Lawton to NC is a surprising pipeline but that is the most common trajectory for folks I knew there. That connection makes the place feal more culturally southern (rigid old school, old money). Lawton has these strong connections that separate it from the rest of Oklahoma.

Not necessarily Lawton to NC - Ft Sill to Ft Bragg is a significant part of that equation I bet and less surprising.

Not necessarily Lawton to NC - Ft Sill to Ft Bragg is a significant part of that equation I bet and less surprising.

Correct, most come due to military transfer. Not a lot of Oklahoma transplants here just to move, I came here to escape DC when I retired.

Daily commutes to Ft Smith are the norm from as far west as Checotah or as far east as Clarksville AR. It has become a popular retirement destination as well. The town also shares a lot of cultural similarities with OKC and identifies more with Oklahoma than the rest of Arkansas.

Very true. Tulsa media does give Ft. Smith a steady dose of all things Oklahoma. Plus, they have a "junction" named for them in Oklahoma City. (!!!) Every time I hear "Ft. Smith Junction" I just sigh. It sounds so out-of-date, old-fashioned, something.

Not necessarily Lawton to NC - Ft Sill to Ft Bragg is a significant part of that equation I bet and less surprising.

FWIW there is also a definite pipeline from Ft Bliss TX (El Paso) to Ft Sill. Surprisingly, both Lawton and El Paso MSA's recorded pretty subpar growth.

Every time I hear "Ft. Smith Junction" I just sigh. It sounds so out-of-date, old-fashioned, something.

That's interesting. I never give a second thought to that nomenclature. It's not an official designation and most people easily know exactly what is being talked about when it is called that. Do you feel the same about the Amarillo Junction?

That's interesting. I never give a second thought to that nomenclature. It's not an official designation and most people easily know exactly what is being talked about when it is called that. Do you feel the same about the Amarillo Junction?

I don't really know. Maybe it doesn't jump out at me as I rarely hear 'Amarillo Junction'. Good question though. I don't feel the same about the Tinker Diagonal or the Broadway Extension. Hmmm. Maybe it's just the "junction" - like I said originally, I really don't know what it is.

It does seem antiquated. It bothers me that we have signs advertising Fort Smith, Dallas, and Amarillo, but scant few advertising Downtown Oklahoma City along our highways.

It does seem antiquated. It bothers me that we have signs advertising Fort Smith, Dallas, and Amarillo, but scant few advertising Downtown Oklahoma City along our highways.

That is everywhere. You don't have to get very far into Houston before you start seeing signs for San Antonio. I don't like when state use every little small town as control cities rather than the next major city. Being that I-40 doesn't even go through Fort Smith period, the eastbound control city out of OKC should be Little Rock.

FWIW there is also a definite pipeline from Ft Bliss TX (El Paso) to Ft Sill. Surprisingly, both Lawton and El Paso MSA's recorded pretty subpar growth.

But the difference is that El Paso is about to explode with growth in the next few decades thanks to BRAC. That installation is a dump right now, but it's adding development at an impressive rate. I read an article about how Ft. Bliss has a current annual economic impact of about $1.5B for El Paso (give or take a few hundred thousand...I can't remember the exact figure). But after the effects of BRAC, Ft. Bliss is expected to haul in roughly $5B annually for El Paso. You can bet that El Paso is going to grow with that kind of influx of money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But the difference is that El Paso is about to explode with growth in the next few decades thanks to BRAC. That installation is a dump right now, but it's adding development at an impressive rate. I read an article about how Ft. Bliss has a current annual economic impact of about $1.5B for El Paso (give or take a few hundred thousand...I can't remember the exact figure). But after the effects of BRAC, Ft. Bliss is expected to haul in roughly $5B annually for El Paso. You can bet that El Paso is going to grow with that kind of influx of money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's some serious "Our City Says FU" money.

It does seem antiquated. It bothers me that we have signs advertising Fort Smith, Dallas, and Amarillo, but scant few advertising Downtown Oklahoma City along our highways.

I actually think this is a Federal guideline with the interstate highway system. There seems to be some rule about it.

But the difference is that El Paso is about to explode with growth in the next few decades thanks to BRAC. That installation is a dump right now, but it's adding development at an impressive rate. I read an article about how Ft. Bliss has a current annual economic impact of about $1.5B for El Paso (give or take a few hundred thousand...I can't remember the exact figure). But after the effects of BRAC, Ft. Bliss is expected to haul in roughly $5B annually for El Paso. You can bet that El Paso is going to grow with that kind of influx of money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm pretty aware of the BRAC expansion at both Ft Bliss and Ft Sill, which is why it surprised me that both areas grew so slowly. If I am not mistaken, some of troop shifts should have started by now, but I could be wrong about that.

^ but doesn't Dallas use 'Denton' on I-35 there instead of Oklahoma City as it's control city?

Is Denton that large/important of a city for a major Interstate to have it as a designation? Is Denton larger or more important than Oklahoma City? Isn't Denton part of the DFW metroplex - so why are they using it as a control city on a major interstate (I could understand I-135 or some spur freeway, but I-35?). With this the case, OKC should use Norman as a control then Denton as you go south.

^^ does I-40 go through Little Rock? I thought it went through North Little Rock and even then it didn't have a huge presence, with Little Rock itself served by spurs (I-440, I-640) and I-30 (I-630), iirc. Honestly, it should say Memphis (and in Memphis should say OKC) imo and I-40W should say ABQ since those are the major city pairs.

No offense to the smaller cities; didn't Saint Louis used to have I-44 showing "Oklahoma City" as a control point once-upon-a-time.

I've observed that Wichita is one city that gives OKC huge props as a control point within their freeway system. ... Honestly, I'd rename the Ft smith junction to the Wichita junction since it is I-40 converging with I-35, and Wichita is the largest city heading outside of that junction. But as others have said, junction really official to my knowledge and is only used by the media.

I think that freeways should still say the host city until you have passed it's central business district. So on I-40 westbound, it should have arrows to Downtown OKC with Exits to Dallas/Edmond/Wichita/Tulsa as you hit the junction and it shouldn't start saying Amarillo until you've passed downtown. ..

I believe that is how we do it here in Seattle, you don't start seeing main signs for Vancouver BC until you reach Seattle CBD on I-5 northbound (although there are mileage signs showing Vancouver BC much farther south). Likewise for Tacoma/Portland going Southbound. It would suck to see main signs for Vancouver BC on I-5 N or Portland in North Seattle suburbs on I-5S when you haven't even reached Seattle yet. ... Why is this the case in OKC? More freeways perhaps, so more 'junctions'?

^ but doesn't Dallas use 'Denton' on I-35 there instead of Oklahoma City as it's control city?

Is Denton that large/important of a city for a major Interstate to have it as a designation? Is Denton larger or more important than Oklahoma City? Isn't Denton part of the DFW metroplex - so why are they using it as a control city on a major interstate (I could understand I-135 or some spur freeway, but I-35?). With this the case, OKC should use Norman as a control then Denton as you go south.

^^ does I-40 go through Little Rock? I thought it went through North Little Rock and even then it didn't have a huge presence, with Little Rock itself served by spurs (I-440, I-640) and I-30 (I-630), iirc. Honestly, it should say Memphis (and in Memphis should say OKC) imo and I-40W should say ABQ since those are the major city pairs.

No offense to the smaller cities; didn't Saint Louis used to have I-44 showing "Oklahoma City" as a control point once-upon-a-time.

I've observed that Wichita is one city that gives OKC huge props as a control point within their freeway system. ... Honestly, I'd rename the Ft smith junction to the Wichita junction since it is I-40 converging with I-35, and Wichita is the largest city heading outside of that junction. But as others have said, junction really official to my knowledge and is only used by the media.

I believe Little Rock is an important enough city to be a control city on I-40. It may not be a major city but its the capital of a state and the only real dot on the map between Oklahoma City and Memphis. Nonetheless, I just came back from Arkansas and I noticed some new signage in Ft Smith pointing to Memphis as the ultimate destination for I-40 eastbound. As for Denton, Texas was once one of the states that did it like North Carolina and used small cities as control cities. On I-40 eastbound in NC, after Asheville, the next control cities are Biloxi, Statesville, Winston-Salem, Greensboro, then finally Raleigh. Raleigh, or at least Greensboro should be the control city as far west as Asheville. It surprises me that the Denton signage has not been replaced by Oklahoma City. I-40 going westbound through Amarillo used to have Tucumcari as its control city. Now it has Albuquerque.

^ but doesn't Dallas use 'Denton' on I-35 there instead of Oklahoma City as it's control city?

Is Denton that large/important of a city for a major Interstate to have it as a designation? Is Denton larger or more important than Oklahoma City? Isn't Denton part of the DFW metroplex - so why are they using it as a control city on a major interstate (I could understand I-135 or some spur freeway, but I-35?). With this the case, OKC should use Norman as a control then Denton as you go south.

^^ does I-40 go through Little Rock? I thought it went through North Little Rock and even then it didn't have a huge presence, with Little Rock itself served by spurs (I-440, I-640) and I-30 (I-630), iirc. Honestly, it should say Memphis (and in Memphis should say OKC) imo and I-40W should say ABQ since those are the major city pairs.

No offense to the smaller cities; didn't Saint Louis used to have I-44 showing "Oklahoma City" as a control point once-upon-a-time.

I've observed that Wichita is one city that gives OKC huge props as a control point within their freeway system. ... Honestly, I'd rename the Ft smith junction to the Wichita junction since it is I-40 converging with I-35, and Wichita is the largest city heading outside of that junction. But as others have said, junction really official to my knowledge and is only used by the media.

It's Texas! They don't like to recognize Oklahoma or Oklahoma City.

North from Fort Worth before you get to I-35W/I-35E fork to Denton, you will see an individual small directional marker which shows the miles to Oklahoma City 191 miles; as you enter Denton you'll see 157 miles to OKC.

If Denton is so strategic, why not rename the Dallas junction to proclaim the Denton junction or use an in state city like the Pauls Valley or Ardmore Junction.


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