Nah...you'd have to remove downtown Bethany entirely. Problem solved!

NW 39th St has the potential to be an amazing corridor but not as a freeway. Even if ODOT had unlimited money and resources I don't see the benefit of converting that thoroughfare to Interstate standards. What would OKC gain from such a conversion that would be worth the loss of all the businesses currently located there as well as the loss of downtown Bethany? I would love to see 39th St improved and spruced up but converting to an Interstate just wouldn't make sense.

If Bethany wasn't dry it would help lol. I see why the Flat Tire Burgers there failed, went in there one night with the wife to grab a burger and beer, and when half of that equation was missing we left.

Do you have reading comprehension problems? No one has suggested people be "prohibited" from building. They've said we should stop subsidizing it.

There have been several in this thread and others state there should be urban growth boundaries in an attempt to restrict sprawl. That I strongly disagree with. As for subsidizing sprawl, its the city's job to provide services where the people live, whether thats the CBD or 192nd and Portland. Perhaps a de-annexation movement should be started as that would prevent the city of OKC from being required to provide services to development farther and farther out. As long as something is in the city limits, the city is obligated to provide city services.

What I was speaking to is the rapid increase in land / real estate values in the core. How would you feel about, say, a 1,300 sq foot condo that is affordable in the inner city? Maybe even with a tiny yard for the grill? Or at least a balcony? And something you could buy for about $200k? It would be tempting, no?


I can/could build you a 1300 s.f. house in HHE for 225k give or take with a yard and a garage and the best downtown elementary school, no balcony. Were you serious about the quoted text above?

I would like to see the city establish some density corridors - I've always thought the 39th Expressway is an ideal candidate for such. This would be a longer term look at growth strategies with the ultimate goal of establishing some sort of rapid transit. 39th Expressway is wide enough to accommodate a BRT, streetcar, or most any other transit mode. It probably can't support the transit now, but with 20 years of targeted density, it could become a very strong economic engine.

People are going to favor places like Edmond over the "urban core". You can begin and end the argument with the school system. Next subject.

People are going to favor places like Edmond over the "urban core". You can begin and end the argument with the school system. Next subject.

Especially because those millennials are getting married and popping out babies like mad...

This is only partly true. Schools are important, however, cities all across America, including OKC, are experiencing a rapid rebirth of their cores despite under-performing school districts.

This is because school districts are really only important to those who have or are going to have children. If not for that I'm sure many would 'shop' around.

Then what's "the sauce?" I think bchris02 hit the nail when he said it's time.

Millenials will have kids, just later (good on them, that's the way you should do it).

This is because school districts are really only important to those who have or are going to have children. If not for that I'm sure many would 'shop' around.

Which is of course true. Without kids we'd be right in the thick of it in a heart beat. I truly think the only ones who wouldn't would be those who truly want to spread out on 1+ acres.

If you believe what most millenials say, our population will eventually just evaporate because they are just too cool and busy to have families.

There are good schools in the urban core. Rex, Wilson and Cleveland, Nichols Hills for elementary. Classen SAS, Belle Isle for middle school. Classen SAS, Harding for high school. All these schools are rated as high as any in the state.

Granted, living in the Wilson or Nichols Hills feeder areas is cost-prohibitive for many. But Cleveland is imminently doable, and many people I know transfer their kids to Wilson, Nichols Hills, Cleveland or now Rex even though they don't live in the designated feeder areas.

So this old saw about it being "all about the schools" is really tiring to me. If you want to live in the city, and have kids, you can make it work. Many do. It is admittedly slightly harder than just living in Deer Creek and never thinking once about which school your kid is heading off to. But then again, commuting a half hour each morning and again each afternoon is harder than not doing so. So it is a trade off.

Wanting extra land. Not wanting an old house. These are legitimate reasons to live in the sprawl. Living in the sprawl and then making off like a victim because the schools "forced you into it" is more or less pure B.S.

Especially because those millennials are getting married and popping out babies like mad...

I posted that “secret sauce” post partly because I do think some on here are really underestimating the massive demographic changes happening in this city and country right now.

Some millennials will eventually have kids but a lot will not. I think of my own circle and very few people my age (late 20's-early 30's) have children, and a good # of those without are actually planning on keeping it that way. That is merely a continuation of a trend that's been gaining steam for about 40 years. It should be noted that 57 percent of households in this country are childless.

Same with marriage rates...for the first time in this country's history there are more single adults than there are married ones. I don't see that bouncing back even if there's dramatic improvement in the economy.

In fact, the “Leave it to Beaver” family of married parents with one or more kids is, for better or worse, the vast minority in this country right now…only about 20 percent of households. This change will have dramatic consequences on a lot of things in our society, good and bad.

And yet, we are building housing for this “Leave it to Beaver” group and really nobody else. Is it any wonder why the housing market has been coming back since the end of 2010, and yet the home ownership rate has and still is declining? Among other things, we are simply not building the types of housing or communities that are aligned to our new reality.

I don't want to dismiss the importance of good schools and a family friendly enviornment, but it tends to be used as a crutch/excuse for a lot of things when in fact it is simply not important to a lot of people.

People are going to favor places like Edmond over the "urban core". You can begin and end the argument with the school system. Next subject.

Very open minded.

I don't know about other single adults but I love living on an acearage. I don't think I could live in the urban core. With that said, let there be a variety of housing choices for all. My concern is if the core is improved and housing cost increase where does it push the poor and never do wells to? If you clean up blight in one area, where does it move to??

to the burbs...and then lets see how much some of these people care. it's easy to hate on the suburbs now because because it's filled with mostly affluent. if it was filled with the poor, i wonder how many would still talk about limiting services out there.

Look at the income level of Bethany and tell me its Affluent. I worked in Edmond so Edmond was a natural choice as far as housing.

to the burbs...and then lets see how much some of these people care. it's easy to hate on the suburbs now because because it's filled with mostly affluent. if it was filled with the poor, i wonder how many would still talk about limiting services out there.

The old assumption that suburbs = affluent hasn't been the case for quite a while now. I remember back in the '90s that was usually the case but today some suburbs are every bit as distressed as some inner city areas. Nonetheless, I believe people's argument is that the city of OKC shouldn't provide the same level of services to far-flung areas that are still within the city limits, such as 192nd and Western, as it does to residents who live in the core. Nobody is saying that towns like Edmond and Bethany shouldn't exist or provide their own services.

The old assumption that suburbs = affluent hasn't been the case for quite a while now. I remember back in the '90s that was usually the case but today some suburbs are every bit as distressed as some inner city areas. Nonetheless, I believe people's argument is that the city of OKC shouldn't provide the same level of services to far-flung areas that are still within the city limits, such as 192nd and Western, as it does to residents who live in the core. Nobody is saying that towns like Edmond and Bethany shouldn't exist or provide their own services.

A voice of reason!

to the burbs...and then lets see how much some of these people care. it's easy to hate on the suburbs now because because it's filled with mostly affluent. if it was filled with the poor, i wonder how many would still talk about limiting services out there.

Del City is totally rich.

Sorry let me clarify, I was talking about the far flung stretches within the city limits, not other cities. If the poor were really ever to be pushed out to the outer limits and all urban areas gentrified, would you care still about limiting services to those out there?

The issue isn't limiting services. The issue is stopping incredibly inefficient sprawl.

There are good schools in the urban core. Rex, Wilson and Cleveland, Nichols Hills for elementary. Classen SAS, Belle Isle for middle school. Classen SAS, Harding for high school. All these schools are rated as high as any in the state.

Granted, living in the Wilson or Nichols Hills feeder areas is cost-prohibitive for many. But Cleveland is imminently doable, and many people I know transfer their kids to Wilson, Nichols Hills, Cleveland or now Rex even though they don't live in the designated feeder areas.

So this old saw about it being "all about the schools" is really tiring to me. If you want to live in the city, and have kids, you can make it work. Many do. It is admittedly slightly harder than just living in Deer Creek and never thinking once about which school your kid is heading off to. But then again, commuting a half hour each morning and again each afternoon is harder than not doing so. So it is a trade off.

Wanting extra land. Not wanting an old house. These are legitimate reasons to live in the sprawl. Living in the sprawl and then making off like a victim because the schools "forced you into it" is more or less pure B.S.

There are a couple good schools, you are correct (although I don't think Cleveland is where you think it is...yet). It is cost prohibitive to live in some of these zones, and if you're having to transfer your kids to somewhere you're not zoned to, you're completely defeating the purpose of going urban. What good does it to do move downtown, send them to Rex through 6th (something we really wanted to do), if after that you have to drive them to Belle Isle MS for 7th & 8th? Kinda defeats the purpose. Harding is a lottery, so you can't count on that being an option, and I don't know enough about Classen, but that's an application process with limited spots as well, no?

It's no guarantee to get into Rex either unless you are in it's zone. They didn't even make it through all of the second tier applicants this year.

Schools by all means aren't the only reason, you're correct, but it's a bigger deal than what you are trying to diminish it for. My wife grew up in old homes, saw the work her folks constantly put in to it. For two working parents, I can see why some don't want to mess with it. I also see a 30 minute commute as a breeze, but I also grew up in Houston and lived in Phoenix & DFW, so 30 minute commutes are nothing in those places :)

The issue isn't limiting services. The issue is stopping incredibly inefficient sprawl.

Okay, not worth arguing over anyway because it's about a theoretical that will likely never happen, stupid of me to go down that road anyhow.

They are building in the burbs because that is desirable for some folks and they are selling. They are also building in the core because that is also desirable and because they are selling.

The best thing to take away with it is, compared to 10 years ago, there are options for all living. People will live where they want to live for all reasons, and now it seems to be easier than ever.

It's really a matter of priorities when it comes to the whole where to live/where to school issue. We sought out an old home in an historic neighborhood in the urban core because that's what we really, really wanted. We also knew that, in so doing, schools would be an issue if we were to have children some day. Sure enough, when the child came along, we had a big decision to make (which I've posted at length about in the thread on OKC public schools). In our particular case, we went private. It costs a fortune, and it involves a 20- to 30-minute commute twice daily, but that was what we knew we were getting into and that's what we've prioritized.

Others we know have different priorities. Example: A family in the neighborhood paid big bucks for their two children to attend daycare every day for the first five years of their lives, yet balked at the idea of paying for their formal schooling when the time came (which probably would've cost the same or even less than day care). Instead, they are attending one of the above-mentioned "better" public schools in another part of the city. That's their choice. Just like the people that really don't have the urge to live downtown or live in old houses, or perhaps simply prefer to live in the suburbs, or specifically do that for the better public schools, make their choices.

Having said that, it is a shame that there aren't more viable inner-city options for public schooling. It's a pain in the butt to have to give something up (or pay for it) in order to get to live where you want.

This should be a shot in the arm for the Oklahoma City metro economy:

Relocation for Seattle employees who want to keep their jobs.

Boeing's big move could mean 900 jobs for OKC:


Boeing could relocate about 900 defense and support-related jobs to Oklahoma City as part of a plan to shift defense-related jobs away from Washington state.

The aerospace company already employs 2,000 in Oklahoma City, and the latest expansion could represent nearly a 50 percent increase in its presence in the city, said Roy Williams, president and CEO of the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber. Oklahoman--September 30, 2014

Boeing moving Washington jobs to Oklahoma City, St. Louis | Local & Regional | Seattle News, Weather, Sports, Breaking News | KOMO News (http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Boeing-moving-jobs-to-Oklahoma-City-St-Louis-277516231.html)

This should be a shot in the arm for the Oklahoma City metro economy:

Relocation for Seattle employees who want to keep their jobs.

Boeing's big move could mean 900 jobs for OKC:

Oklahoman--September 30, 2014

Boeing moving Washington jobs to Oklahoma City, St. Louis | Local & Regional | Seattle News, Weather, Sports, Breaking News | KOMO News (http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Boeing-moving-jobs-to-Oklahoma-City-St-Louis-277516231.html)

LOL, as if the Seattle folks didn't have enough to hate OKC for already. :wink:

Hey, if we just slowly move all of the jobs and employees and employers in Seattle to OKC, it's kind of like them getting the Supersonics back.

A year or so ago I was on a car rental shuttle bus from Seatac Airport and was the only one on the bus. The driver struck up a conversation with me and asked "where are you from". Oklahoma City, I replied. His response....."What are you up here to steal this time?"

Yes, they are still smarting from the Sonics moving. LOL.

How the Suburbs Got Poor (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/09/poverty_in_the_suburbs_places_that_thrived_in_the_ era_of_two_parent_families.html)

A year or so ago I was on a car rental shuttle bus from Seatac Airport and was the only one on the bus. The driver struck up a conversation with me and asked "where are you from". Oklahoma City, I replied. His response....."What are you up here to steal this time?"

Yes, they are still smarting from the Sonics moving. LOL.

I was at Sea-Tac in June and I wore a Thunder t-shirt that day and while I was in line for screening, a TSA agent walked passed me and said "we want a refund".

A year or so ago I was on a car rental shuttle bus from Seatac Airport and was the only one on the bus. The driver struck up a conversation with me and asked "where are you from". Oklahoma City, I replied. His response....."What are you up here to steal this time?"

Yes, they are still smarting from the Sonics moving. LOL.

My experience in Seattle for the Huskies-Sooners football game in 2008 was a real surprise. Several people who saw me in my Oklahoma Sooners attire did casually mention the Sonics relocation. "Yes, the Sonics are headed to Oklahoma." I got the feeling that most of them really didn't care.

The Seattle area was impressive. They had skyscrapers everywhere. The nickname 'Emerald City' fits Seattle. Bellevue looked like a larger modern version of Corpus Christi, TX .

On the Census website it shows the city of Oklahoma City 2013 estimated population at 610,000. Does anybody know of any estimates for the future population of OKC? Like 2023? Just curious.

On the Census website it shows the city of Oklahoma City 2013 estimated population at 610,000. Does anybody know of any estimates for the future population of OKC? Like 2023? Just curious.

2050: 891,000 or so (see page 48: http://www.planokc.org/docs/2014/0805/planokc_CostsGrowth_2014_06_20_Final_withAppendice s.pdf)

It's really impossible to accurately figure population growth years out. Cities never grow at a set rate continually. Even the census estimates can be very wrong, as seen when the 2010 census numbers were revealed.

What would be considered "critical mass" for OKC Metro area population? We're going to hit 1.5 million fairly soon.

I'm willing to bet OKC's population will explode and beat projections.

I'm willing to bet OKC's population will explode and beat projections.

Charlotte's population exploded from 540,828 people in 2000 to over 700,000 in 2010. If growth really takes off, I think OKC could see 800,000 in the next twenty years, well before 2050.

A year or so ago I was on a car rental shuttle bus from Seatac Airport and was the only one on the bus. The driver struck up a conversation with me and asked "where are you from". Oklahoma City, I replied. His response....."What are you up here to steal this time?"

Yes, they are still smarting from the Sonics moving. LOL.They better watch out. Keep it up and we're taking the Seahawks. Some "redneck hillbilly" from "hicktown" will somehow go in and finesse the Seahawks away from Seattle. How dumb hicks from Oklahoma City "stole" the Sonics from Mensa City is a mystery to me.

So, I remember hearing 100 people a day were moving to Austin and thought that was a staggering number. So, I did some research and found the population of the OKC metro area was 1.25 million in 2010 and has gone to an estimated 1.41 million in 2014. That is a difference of 160,000 people in four years, 40,000 per year or 109.6 per day. Now, that is not just people moving here, it is also people being born and dying. Any idea what an accurate estimate would be for this? Maybe 50/day?

So, I remember hearing 100 people a day were moving to Austin and thought that was a staggering number. So, I did some research and found the population of the OKC metro area was 1.25 million in 2010 and has gone to an estimated 1.41 million in 2014. That is a difference of 160,000 people in four years, 40,000 per year or 109.6 per day. Now, that is not just people moving here, it is also people being born and dying. Any idea what an accurate estimate would be for this? Maybe 50/day?

Where did you see the metro estimate is now 1.41 million? I am not doubting that but last I checked, the OKC metro had just crossed the 1.3 million mark.

Where did you see the metro estimate is now 1.41 million? I am not doubting that but last I checked, the OKC metro had just crossed the 1.3 million mark.

Oklahoma City Population 2014 - World Population Review (http://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/oklahoma-city-population/)

In 2014, Oklahoma City has an estimated population of 1.31 million people.

Says 1.3 +

but then this says
In 2014, Oklahoma City metro is home to 1.41 million residents

I don't get it.

Google has us at 1,252,987

https://www.google.com/search?q=okc+metro+population&oq=okc+metro+population&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i65l2j69i60l3.3316j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8

Says 1.3 +

It also says 1.41 in the second paragraph, but that could have been a typo. So if the 1.31 is correct, that brings the number to 60,000 people in four years, 15,000 per year, or 41/day.

It also says 1.41 in the second paragraph, but that could have been a typo. So if the 1.31 is correct, that brings the number to 60,000 people in four years, 15,000 per year, or 41/day.

Yeah 1.31 seems like the correct number. 1.41 is likely a typo. OKC may reach 1.4 by 2020 if current trends continue. The Google estimate is the official 2010 census count.

This website is a great resource for accurate population numbers:

Oklahoma City, OK MSA Population and Components of Change -- Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University Home (http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/pop/popm/cbsa36420.asp)

According to this, the OKC MSA is 1.319 million as of June 2013, while the OKC CSA (MSA+Pottowatomie County) is 1.39 million. If someone is extrapolating current growth rates to now, OKC CSA is likely over 1.4 million.

Further more, if you total up all the net migration (both domestic and international), OKC has added just shy of 37,000 people over a three year period.

I'm a bit of a statistics nerd and could prbably see how this stacks up to our peer cities if someone was interested.

I'm a bit of a statistics nerd and could prbably see how this stacks up to our peer cities if someone was interested.

I'm interested.

Cool. May have to wait for get off of work this evening...I have to be somewhat productive today LOL. There does seem to be a lot of debate on here as to whether OKC is really seeing meaningful population growth or is merely trending slightly above average in that department.

Dat net domestic migration.

I'm interested.
Me too. Please.

Yeah 1.31 seems like the correct number. 1.41 is likely a typo. OKC may reach 1.4 by 2020 if current trends continue. The Google estimate is the official 2010 census count.
I bet OKC will reach 1.4 way before 2020 and if Adaniel is right, we are already there.

I bet OKC will reach 1.4 way before 2020 and if Adaniel is right, we are already there.

If you include Pottawatomie County (Shawnee) then yes, the metro is already there. Personally I feel Shawnee is just disconnected enough to not be included. Right now, the US Census Bureau feels the same way being that its designated as a CSA, meaning there still are commute patterns into Oklahoma County but not enough for it to be considered part of the MSA.

This website is a great resource for accurate population numbers:

Oklahoma City, OK MSA Population and Components of Change -- Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University Home (http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/pop/popm/cbsa36420.asp)

According to this, the OKC MSA is 1.319 million as of June 2013, while the OKC CSA (MSA+Pottowatomie County) is 1.39 million. If someone is extrapolating current growth rates to now, OKC CSA is likely over 1.4 million.

Further more, if you total up all the net migration (both domestic and international), OKC has added just shy of 37,000 people over a three year period.

I'm a bit of a statistics nerd and could prbably see how this stacks up to our peer cities if someone was interested.

It's crazy looking at the international and domestic migration trends for some of the largest cities. NYC, for instance, had a staggering net loss of 107K domestic migrants, but that was more than offset by a net gain of 126K international migrants. Crazy.

there still are commute patterns into Oklahoma County but not enough for it to be considered part of the MSA.Interesting. Wondered about criteria for CSA vs MSA inclusion. Shawnee did seem too distant. What about Chickasha? Same criterion, probably. Not a strong enough commute pattern.

I also had been interested in an off-topic for another thread; TV market size. How Ogden is lumped in with Salt Lake City and why Tulsa wouldn't be included in the OKC/Thunder TV market. Anyway, back to topic.

Alright folks, without further adieu, here are the requested population growth rates for OKC as well as it's peer metros. For my highly unscientific comparisons, I am using the 5 metros that are gradually bigger and gradually smaller than OKC as of estimates done by the census in 2013. They are, in order of size, Virginia Beach, Providence, Milwaukee, Jacksonville, and Memphis for metros bigger than OKC. And Louisville, Richmond, New Orleans, Hartford, and Raleigh as MSA's smaller than. The components of population growth have been broken down and are from 2010-2013. I am emphasizing the total growth number and total migration number.

Norfolk-Virginia Beach, VA
2013 Population: 1,702,484
Change from 2010: 30,801
Births-Deaths Surplus: 29,592
Int'l Migration: 15,656
Domestic Migration: -17,728
Total Migration: -2,072

Providence-Fall River, RI-MA
2013 Population: 1,604,291
Change from 2010: 3,439
Births-Deaths Surplus: 6,736
Int'l Migration: 13,365
Domestic Migration: -17,253
Total Migration: -3,888

Milwaukee-Waukesha, WI
2013 Population: 1,569,659
Change from 2010: 13,751
Births-Deaths Surplus: 21,568
Int'l Migration: 6,547
Domestic Migration: -14,282
Total Migration: -7,735

Jacksonville, FL
2013 Population: 1,394,624
Change from 2010: 49,028
Births-Deaths Surplus: 18,512
Int'l Migration: 9,760
Domestic Migration: 16,932
Total Migration: 26,692

Jacksonville, FL
2013 Population: 1,394,624
Change from 2010: 49,028
Births-Deaths Surplus: 18,512
Int'l Migration: 9,760
Domestic Migration: 16,932
Total Migration: 26,692

Memphis, TN-AR-MS
2013 Population: 1,333,175
Change from 2010: 17,075
Births-Deaths Surplus: 24,364
Int'l Migration: 4,874
Domestic Migration: -13,575
Total Migration: -8,701

Oklahoma City, OK
2013 Population: 1,319,677
Change from 2010: 66,690
Births-Deaths Surplus: 23,706
Int'l Migration: 6,759
Domestic Migration: 30,086
Total Migration: 36,845

Louisville, KY-IN
2013 Population: 1,312,039
Change from 2010: 28,473
Births-Deaths Surplus: 14,324
Int'l Migration: 6,752
Domestic Migration: 5,469
Total Migration: 12,221

Richmond, VA
2013 Population: 1,296,680
Change from 2010: 38,429
Births-Deaths Surplus: 15,432
Int'l Migration: 9,599
Domestic Migration: 11,006
Total Migration: 20,605

New Orleans-Metaire, LA
2013 Population: 1,219,225
Change from 2010: 51,461
Births-Deaths Surplus: 14,799
Int'l Migration: 8,652
Domestic Migration: 21,371
Total Migration: 30,023

Hartford, CT
2013 Population: 1,215,211
Change from 2010: 2,830
Births-Deaths Surplus: 5,873
Int'l Migration: 15,206
Domestic Migration: -18,979
Total Migration: -3,773

Raleigh-Cary, NC
2013 Population: 1,214,516
Change from 2010: 84,026
Births-Deaths Surplus: 27,228
Int'l Migration: 10,875
Domestic Migration: 38,088
Total Migration: 48,963

**FWIW, only Raleigh exceeded OKC's total population growth as well as the total migration number.

I'm really impressed with those numbers.

nm