When is Enough, Enough???

[bucktalk]

I am amazed and delighted at the progress in OKC over the past years. I applaud those in leadership position who have created an environment for improvements and vision casting for OKC. I am one of OKC's cheerleaders when it comes to bragging on our city.

But there is part of that wonders when will enough growth in business and urban sprawl be enough? Part of me cringes to think of OKC being a city of 2 or 3 million. I shudder at the thought of Dallas/Fort Worth kind of traffic. I don't suppose there is any way of saying 'enough is enough' but I just wonder if OKC as a whole is ready for massive growth in the next 10-15 years. Currently I almost want to say enough IS enough.

Your thoughts?

[adaniel]

Your fears are legitimate, but as someone who grew up in DFW, I think we have a long ways to go before we get to that point.

Even assuming that OKC keeps growing at the current rate (about 2% a year, which is double the national average), we won't hit 2 million until the 2030's.

I actually think that OKC is pretty well positioned to handle growth. Looking at the water issues they are now having in Texas (and I think it will only get worse) makes me grateful of the many lakes around here. Now if we can just convince the Choctaws to get on board...

Now I didn't grow up here so I have no idea how traffic has changed. But with the exception of I-35 b/w OKC and Norman, most freeways around here are not congested at all and are pretty much empty outside of rush hour. We also have a good grid network of roads.

As for the level of sprawl, thats a bit of a question mark, but I'll be an optimist. I think there are a lot of forces at play, both locally (i.e., the general improvement of the inner city) and globally (changing demographics, high energy costs) will limit sprawl in the future. OKC in the future will be far more compact. Then again, this is Oklahoma, where we like our space. I already know people who've bought land in Wellston (!!) with the expectations it will be all subdivisions in 20 years. Lets hope they are wrong.

[mcca7596]

I already know people who've bought land in Wellston (!!) with the expectations it will be all subdivisions in 20 years. Lets hope they are wrong.

Arcadia and Jones maybe, but surely not Wellston.

Regarding population growth itself, I don't think it's reasonable to try to on the one hand increase the city's national image and quality of life, while on the other try to impose a growth threshold. Sprawl on the other hand? It's totally possible to reign in; there is beyond an abundance of open space even within the urban core.

[MDot]

Enough is enough when enough has happened enough.

[Hawk405359]

I don't think it's an inevitability for the city to end up with Dallas's flaws just because the population is getting bigger. For one thing, OKC leaders can see what Dallas is doing, see what works and what doesn't, and plan accordingly. Our population won't be there for a while, and OKC is in a position where, if they plan well, they can prepare for those issues before they arise, assuming the population remains on board. That's the advantage of not being that size yet, the ability to learn from the good decisions and mistakes of other cities and plan accordingly.

[Oil Capital]

Your fears are legitimate, but as someone who grew up in DFW, I think we have a long ways to go before we get to that point.

Even assuming that OKC keeps growing at the current rate (about 2% a year, which is double the national average), we won't hit 2 million until the 2030's.

2% per year? Are you sure about that? I think it less than that. At least from 2000-2010 I think the aggregate growth was in the neighborhood of 11-12 percent, a very manageable growth rate (and about half the rate of growth being handled by the Texas cities.)

[Bunty]

Ask Denver people how they are coping with urban sprawl. Probably not very good even though they have mountains to the west to stop it.

[ljbab728]

OKC is not going to experience "massive growth" in the next 10 to 15 years. It should be moderate continous growth and if you try to reign it in that will be a problem as well. If you're aren't going forward you're going to be going backwards.

[mugofbeer]

Ask Denver people how they are coping with urban sprawl. Probably not very good even though they have mountains to the west to stop it.

The main problem with Denver is that they refused to accept the fact that people were going to move into that metro area and, along with environmentalists who didn't want to see highways built, refused to build highways to cope with that growth. As a result, the highway system is very inadequate - similar to what has happened in Austin. Only in recent years have they really started to address the issue with the reconstruction of I-25 in the southern part of the city. However, most of the rest of the highways in Denver are inadequate in lane capacity.

The upside is that Denver is a more densely populated city and has a decent light rail system underway. The bus system is also very good but underfunded. Proximity to the mountains has also helped Denver to have a healthy urban core with mid and high rise apartments and condo's still under construction despite the national economy.

With the construction of the Denver International Airport and the closure of Lowery Air Force Base, Denver has two excellent infill development projects with others planned for other parts of the city. Drive through the older areas to the southeast of downtown Denver and you will see thousands of teardown, remodel and poptop home projects.

Yes, there have been new homes built around Denver, but new development along the base of the mountains is pretty quiet. Denver is growing east and southeast but at a fairly slow rate.

[HewenttoJared]

Slow rate east of Denver? My cousins used to line in the woods. Now they live in a town busier than Edmond and are surrounded by rolling hills of cookie-cutter housing. It's pretty upsetting, and not in a way that better roads would fix. When I was little we uses to see herds of pronghorn 2 minutes from their house. Now? Roof after roof after roof for as far as you can see. It's sad.

[MikeOKC]

If you talk to longtime San Diego natives, they'll tell you how many tried to "slow the growth" way back when San Diego was a nice small distant cousin to LA. Fast forward a few decades and San Diego has tuned into exactly what those "stop the growthers" predicted - it's a mini-LA with traffic to match. When I'm in San Diego and visit with older natives they all say, almost to the person, how they long for the days of the "old" San Diego.

[ljbab728]

People always long for the good old days. It's better just to realize that change is going to happen and plan to deal with it in the best way possible.

[Oil Capital]

There is a bit of a disconnect in the fears expressed in the first post. There is simply no reason to expect Dallas-Fort Worth style traffic problems if OKC becomes a city of 2-3 million people. The DFW metropolitan area currently has a population of over 6 million people.

Even if there were something to fear about becoming a city of 2-3 million people, it's well off in the future. At the rate of growth OKC experienced from 2000 to 2010 (14.38%), OKC won't pass the 2 million mark until sometime around 2047. The 3 million mark would be near 2080. I think we have time to prepare.

[Pete]

OKC has been growing relatively modestly when compared to anything considered a boom town.

That may change but the city has been seeing a steady yet not crazy growth for some time. I would expect that to continue at a slightly faster, but still manageable pace.


And besides, there is still plenty of capacity in almost every sense: land to build (both central and suburban), properties prime for redevelopment, new frontiers even within the central city, unclogged freeways, etc.

I think for the foreseeable future growth will continue to enhance OKC, not detract from the quality of life already present.

[Just the facts]

I am amazed and delighted at the progress in OKC over the past years. I applaud those in leadership position who have created an environment for improvements and vision casting for OKC. I am one of OKC's cheerleaders when it comes to bragging on our city.

But there is part of that wonders when will enough growth in business and urban sprawl be enough? Part of me cringes to think of OKC being a city of 2 or 3 million. I shudder at the thought of Dallas/Fort Worth kind of traffic. I don't suppose there is any way of saying 'enough is enough' but I just wonder if OKC as a whole is ready for massive growth in the next 10-15 years. Currently I almost want to say enough IS enough.

Your thoughts?

Welcome to the movement. I recommend you start by reading Suburban Nation: the Rise of Sprawl and the Death of the American Dream. It provide a very good foundation for further reading, research, education, and activism.

http://www.newurbanism.org/

[Sheetkeecker]

With southward expansion of suburbs, it seems likely that the annexation of Dallas and Fort Worth is in the future.

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

The main problem with Denver is that they refused to accept the fact that people were going to move into that metro area and, along with environmentalists who didn't want to see highways built, refused to build highways to cope with that growth. As a result, the highway system is very inadequate - similar to what has happened in Austin. Only in recent years have they really started to address the issue with the reconstruction of I-25 in the southern part of the city. However, most of the rest of the highways in Denver are inadequate in lane capacity.

The upside is that Denver is a more densely populated city and has a decent light rail system underway. The bus system is also very good but underfunded. Proximity to the mountains has also helped Denver to have a healthy urban core with mid and high rise apartments and condo's still under construction despite the national economy.

With the construction of the Denver International Airport and the closure of Lowery Air Force Base, Denver has two excellent infill development projects with others planned for other parts of the city. Drive through the older areas to the southeast of downtown Denver and you will see thousands of teardown, remodel and poptop home projects.

Yes, there have been new homes built around Denver, but new development along the base of the mountains is pretty quiet. Denver is growing east and southeast but at a fairly slow rate.

I lived in Denver for a few years, and that was my biggest complaint. The highways were just horrible for that size of a city (I moved there from San Diego)...And people commuting to downtown will take a surface street to get there. Imagine living in Moore and taking Western to get to downtown OKC...With triple the amount of traffic it currently has at that time of day. I was miserable.