Good news according to The Oklahoman. The housing market seems alive and well in Oklahoma City with the exception of a few suburbs.
http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-home...rticle/3688768
Good news according to The Oklahoman. The housing market seems alive and well in Oklahoma City with the exception of a few suburbs.
http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-home...rticle/3688768
It's interesting that Moore and Norman are still posting negative figures, I wonder if anyone has theorized on why that is. Also I am surprised that Yukon isn't mentioned at all, it seems like it has grown enough in recent years to be occasionally checked for a pulse in articles like this.
Yeah now that I think about it that is very wierd, because I just had a friend who moved out there and there really is alot going on there esp. new housing developements.
As for Moore and Norman, I have no clue about Norman, but it seems like Moore is doing pretty well IDK why they are negative.
BTW. I meant to type Housing Market.
The down numbers in Moore and Norman are really insignificant when looking at exact numbers. It's nothing to be concerned about for either city.
The city lines aren't murky at all. They are very specific. The Oklahoman has just traditionally never included Yukon or Mustang when giving housing figures. The area in OKC between Yukon and Mustang is still very active and is included in the overall OKC figures.
What I was saying is many people mistake the areas that are West OKC and North Mustang for Yukon, which those areas did slow housing starts which could easily make someone feel Yukon's was slowing
I know those areas can get confused by the general public but not by anyone doing official figures. I'm not sure what you mean by North Mustang being confused for Yukon. I've never heard that before. Mustang ends at 59th Street so it doesn't go very far North. I've seen no evidence that those areas are slowing. Do you know something that I don't?
I am dissapointed that Yukon wasnt mentioned, I really want to see Yukon and Mustang continue growing and eventually be the size of Edmond one day. Dont see how Moore is the fastest growing suburb at all.
Mustang has 12 square miles so it's impossible for it to ever achieve Edmond's population. Yukon has a little over twice as much area. Edmond has about 88 square miles. Mustang and Yukon combined will never match Edmond in population.
Moore's numbers weren't the largest for the suburbs. It was the greatest percentage increase for the larger suburbs, however.
I suppose they could always begin to build upwards, but I suspect that would chafe more than a few folks in town if things began to grow that direction.
Right know we are at 6400 single family permits..over 20% from last year>>
The last few homes that I've had listed have sold very fast. The housing market in the OKC metro area is doing well in my opinion.
In the state of the city address, it was mentioned 2,000 people move to OKC every month. That's an average of 66 a day. It's an interesting thought.
It said Moore was down 16%, but isn't the Moore city limits pretty much built out? I imagine most of OKC's huge increase in starts was in the far SW side in the Moore school district or far NW side in the Edmond or Deer Creek school district. For suburban areas, those two areas are really the best in the metro.
Moore still has a fair amount of undeveloped land.
http://www.cityofmoore.com/sites/def...eOKMap2011.pdf
You would think Moore would be encouraging more dense, urban development since they will be running out of land in the next several years if trends continue.
There are currently 9 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 9 guests)
Bookmarks