Dear Dallas

[josh]

duplicate

[josh]

A lot of people are hoping OKC sees a growth spurt that pushes it above the historical average for a while. Charlotte did it in a decade - in 2000 they were comparable with OKC but today they are above even Austin and San Antonio. Personally, I think there is a lot of wishful thinking and believe there are some negative forces pushing against the possibility of OKC becoming a boomtown. Nonetheless, I would LOVE to be proven wrong on that and hope the growth does accelerate.

Charlotte became a CSA during the 2000s which greatly increased its population. Its own MSA also added more counties to its boundaries in 2012, which also increased its population. It wasn't some amazing growth spurt as you put it. The same MSA region in 2000 that had 1.3 million, had 1.85 million in 2012. But now because the Census will add more counties to its MSA region, its population for 2013 was 2.2 million.

Essentially, what happened during the 2000s for Charlotte would be as if OKC added Tusla to its MSA and formed a CSA. OKC would go from 1.3 million to 2.4 million during a decade. But 1.1 million people wouldn't have moved there during that time.

Charlotte didn't have a net gain of 1.1 million people over 12 years either, or 92,000 a year growth. To figure out the actual yearly growth, you have to calculate all the counties now making up the current MSA and current CSA for Charlotte, in 2000 and then again in 2012, and compare the difference. It's probably closer to 30,000 a year annual growth.

[Plutonic Panda]

At 1.3 million and at its current and historical pace of growth, OKC won't hit the 2 million mark for another 30-35 years. By then, Dallas will be over 10 million easily and there will probably be a DFW-OKC-TULSA mega CSA. lol

OKC could hit boomtown status and we could be over 2 million within the next two years. All it takes is a boom. Look at Charlotte, Nashville, and Austin--what were their projected populations before they boomed?

Also, OKC has had the biggest population jumps ever recorded in the country.

[catch22]

2 million within the next 2 years?

That's 700,000 people in 2 years. That's close to 1,000 new residents each day. That kind of boom is quite literally impossible. We would have to have about 4 apartment complexes the size of the Edge opening every single day to absorb that.

[josh]

OKC could hit boomtown status and we could be over 2 million within the next two years. All it takes is a boom. Look at Charlotte, Nashville, and Austin--what were their projected populations before they boomed?

Also, OKC has had the biggest population jumps ever recorded in the country.

As I've said and shown, Charlotte didn't have a "boom", it added already populated counties to its MSA and CSA boundaries.

Nashville isn't really booming either.

That word booming. I don't think it means what you think it means.

P.S.

OKC could hit 2 million in two years...

[Plutonic Panda]

2 million within the next 2 years?

That's 700,000 people in 2 years. That's close to 1,000 new residents each day. That kind of boom is quite literally impossible. We would have to have about 4 apartment complexes the size of the Edge opening every single day to absorb that.

The point I was making, was that OKC could experience a population boom that could blow projections out of the water.

BTW, I meant OKC's metro pop. growing to over 2 million, not 2 million new people moving into the city.

[Plutonic Panda]

As I've said, Charlotte didn't have a "boom", it added already populated counties to his MSA and CSA.

Nashville isn't really booming either.

P.S.

OKC could hit 2 million in two years?

First off, Charlotte is/was known as a boomtown and Nashville is a boomtown to. Nashville is growing pretty fast and is looking at a super tall being built with a fabulous new convention center with TONS of downtown development.

Secondly, I am not stating OKC will hit 2 million within the next two years. My statement was, if OKC has a population boom, we could easily exceed anyones projections. Perhaps adding 400,000 people a year is was an extreme comparison, but I was just making a point.

[catch22]

The point I was making, was that OKC could experience a population boom that could blow projections out of the water.

BTW, I meant OKC's metro pop. growing to over 2 million, not 2 million new people moving into the city.

Yes growing to 2 mil means an added 700k people, or 1,000 a day. Not going to happen

[josh]

The point I was making, was that OKC could experience a population boom that could blow projections out of the water.

BTW, I meant OKC's metro pop. growing to over 2 million, not 2 million new people moving into the city.

Oklahoma metro is at 1.3 million. That's 700,000 short of 2 million.

[josh]

First off, Charlotte is/was known as a boomtown and Nashville is a boomtown to. Nashville is growing pretty fast and is looking at a super tall being built with a fabulous new convention center with TONS of downtown development.

Nashville has not been a population boomtown. Never has been. Sorry. Here are Nashville's numbers. Nashville has only added 40,000 or more people once since 2000. Just once. Also, from just looking, that year seemed to be the result of Hurricane Katrina, when many southern cities saw large gains of new residents from New Orleans.

Nashville also only added 30,000+ three times since 2000.

It's growing nicely, but its not a "boomtown". A boomtown has to achieve atleast 25% or higher growth during a decade.

Yes, downtown/urban development wise, yes, it's having a boom.

You're right, Charlotte is a boomtown, and I should have said a misunderstood boomtown instead of saying it isn't a boomtown. Again, Charlotte's big jump in population occurred from the addition of new populated counties added to its defined metro area and then gaining CSA recognition.

As an example, it would be like OKC and Tulsa forming a CSA and the OKC metro overnight jumped to 2.4 million people. 1.1 million people didn't relocate to OKC overnight. You get it?

On a yearly basis, Charlotte adds about 35-40,000 people a year. That's not bad.

Secondly, I am not stating OKC will hit 2 million within the next two years. My statement was, if OKC has a population boom, we could easily exceed anyones projections. Perhaps adding 400,000 people a year is was an extreme comparison, but I was just making a point.

Sure, but it could also start raining candy next year too but historically and from what we know, that's not going to happen.

[bchris02]

Charlotte became a CSA during the 2000s which greatly increased its population. Its own MSA also added more counties to its boundaries in 2012, which also increased its population. It wasn't some amazing growth spurt as you put it. The same MSA region in 2000 that had 1.3 million, had 1.85 million in 2012. But now because the Census will add more counties to its MSA region, its population for 2013 was 2.2 million.

Essentially, what happened during the 2000s for Charlotte would be as if OKC added Tusla to its MSA and formed a CSA. OKC would go from 1.3 million to 2.4 million during a decade. But 1.1 million people wouldn't have moved there during that time.

Charlotte didn't have a net gain of 1.1 million people over 12 years either, or 92,000 a year growth. To figure out the actual yearly growth, you have to calculate all the counties now making up the current MSA and current CSA for Charlotte, in 2000 and then again in 2012, and compare the difference. It's probably closer to 30,000 a year annual growth.

This is one of the main reasons I hate the CSA metric. If including only the counties that were included in 2000, the Charlotte MSA population would be 1.8 or 1.9 million. They were at 1.1 million in 1990 and 1.5 million in 2000. So not quite as fast as I originally thought, but still very brisk. If OKC grew as fast as Charlotte we could be looking at a metro area of 1.7-1.8 million in 2020, which would put it very close to Charlotte today. I don't see that happening though for various reasons, but its cool to speculate. I usually don't pay any attention to CSA metrics.

[bchris02]

The point I was making, was that OKC could experience a population boom that could blow projections out of the water.

BTW, I meant OKC's metro pop. growing to over 2 million, not 2 million new people moving into the city.

If OKC say the same rate of population growth Charlotte did, 2 million would be hit sometime between 2020 and 2025. I am however going to predict more tepid population growth and say OKC will reach 1.4 million by 2020 and 1.6 by 2030.

[bluedogok]

OKC could hit boomtown status and we could be over 2 million within the next two years. All it takes is a boom. Look at Charlotte, Nashville, and Austin--what were their projected populations before they boomed?

Also, OKC has had the biggest population jumps ever recorded in the country.

Greater Austin population from 1960.

Year Population Growth
1960 301,261 --
1970 398,938 32.4%
1980 585,051 46.7%
1990 846,227 44.6%
2000 1,249,763 47.7%
2010 1,716,289 37.3%
Est. 2012 1,834,303 6.9%

[josh]

No offense to Plutonic, but I get the vibe that he's incredibly young,

[JoninATX]

If you guys also haven't heard Dallas is starting it's 2nd signature bridge. This one will be on I 30 crossing the Trinity River. The bridge frame is already hard at work at their Florida facility and will be shipped to Dallas once they have all there pieces made.

From a steel plant in Tampa, Florida, a very, very early look at Dallas? second Calatrava bridge | Dallas Morning News

[Plutonic Panda]

Yes growing to 2 mil means an added 700k people, or 1,000 a day. Not going to happen

Let me say this again

The point I was making, was that OKC could experience a population boom that could blow projections out of the water.

[Plutonic Panda]

If you guys also haven't heard Dallas is starting it's 2nd signature bridge. This one will be on I 30 crossing the Trinity River. The bridge frame is already hard at work at their Florida facility and will be shipped to Dallas once they have all there pieces made.

From a steel plant in Tampa, Florida, a very, very early look at Dallas? second Calatrava bridge | Dallas Morning News

Yes, that will be beautiful bridge.

[Plutonic Panda]

Nashville has not been a population boomtown. Never has been. Sorry. Here are Nashville's numbers. Nashville has only added 40,000 or more people once since 2000. Just once. Also, from just looking, that year seemed to be the result of Hurricane Katrina, when many southern cities saw large gains of new residents from New Orleans.

Nashville also only added 30,000+ three times since 2000.

It's growing nicely, but its not a "boomtown". A boomtown has to achieve atleast 25% or higher growth during a decade.

Yes, downtown/urban development wise, yes, it's having a boom.

You're right, Charlotte is a boomtown, and I should have said a misunderstood boomtown instead of saying it isn't a boomtown. Again, Charlotte's big jump in population occurred from the addition of new populated counties added to its defined metro area and then gaining CSA recognition.

As an example, it would be like OKC and Tulsa forming a CSA and the OKC metro overnight jumped to 2.4 million people. 1.1 million people didn't relocate to OKC overnight. You get it?

On a yearly basis, Charlotte adds about 35-40,000 people a year. That's not bad.



Sure, but it could also start raining candy next year too but historically and from what we know, that's not going to happen.

Alright, fair enough then, I was wrong about that. I just see Nashville high up on a lot of best cities rankings lists and know they have a ton of development going on, so I figured they'd be a boomtown.

I understand what you are saying about MSA and CSA, I get what happened to Charlotte, but it seems Charlotte really improved itself prior to 2000.

Now, I understand it is incredibly unrealistic for OKC to add 400,000 people a year, but I don't think it is bad to assume OKC might become a boomtown.

[Plutonic Panda]

Greater Austin population from 1960.

Wow, those are amazing numbers. Didn't realize how long they have really been on a ball.

[Plutonic Panda]

No offense to Plutonic, but I get the vibe that he's incredibly young,

I'm now 20.

[JoninATX]

It's cool I'm in my 20's and loving every single bit of it. It's hard to actually take in on what they mean through a computer, than just simply talking to a person.

[josh]

Alright, fair enough then, I was wrong about that. I just see Nashville high up on a lot of best cities rankings lists and know they have a ton of development going on, so I figured they'd be a boomtown.

I understand what you are saying about MSA and CSA, I get what happened to Charlotte, but it seems Charlotte really improved itself prior to 2000.

Now, I understand it is incredibly unrealistic for OKC to add 400,000 people a year, but I don't think it is bad to assume OKC might become a boomtown.

It's unrealistic in the sense of projections because historically and currently, there's nothing to indicate that would happen. Could OKC improve a percentage point or two decade wise, sure, but that would still wouldn't get OKC anywhere near boomtown status.

I think you should be happy that your metro is growing and isn't stagnant or decreasing like other metros.

[josh]

Wow, those are amazing numbers. Didn't realize how long they have really been on a ball.

In 1960 San Antonio had a population of 587,718. Today the population is 2.3 million.

[josh]

I'm now 20.

Not as young as I assumed (16 or 17) but still young and naive/idealistic to a fault. I was like that at that age as well so I mean that as no insult. I didn't have a full understanding. You'll get there. I'm in my late 20s now.

[bchris02]

It's unrealistic in the sense of projections because historically and currently, there's nothing to indicate that would happen. Could OKC improve a percentage point or two decade wise, sure, but that would still wouldn't get OKC anywhere near boomtown status.

I think you should be happy that your metro is growing and isn't stagnant or decreasing like other metros.

I agree. It's really awesome OKC is growing as much as it is, but we are a good ways off from boomtown status. In order for OKC to become a boomtown, two things need to happen.

1. Much higher rate of job growth than we are currently seeing, especially middle and high income
2. Increased and improved amenities so that choosing OKC over other cities doesn't result in significant sacrifices in quality of life, and may in fact have advantages other than low cost of living

If those two things happen, everything else will take care of itself and we can watch the 25 story condo towers spring up.