Population Growth for OKC

[Rover]

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?

[Teo9969]

The same could be said for people that live directly downtown. How many people live downtown vs. the suburbs that provide tax dollars for OKC?

But how many people provide tax dollars for OKC at the same level of density in those *neighborhoods*. What produces and has produced more (sales) tax dollars, Hefner/MacArthur/Council/Memorial or 235/Reno/Pennsylvania/23rd?

PCN, Westmoore, Founder's District and Quail Springs don't all get to be called "The Suburbs" collectively. They're all individual units and the question is do they produce on the same level as downtown? Maybe 4 to 8 other areas produced on the same level as or higher than the Core did when MAPS originally passed…now…maybe 3: I-240, Memorial (Quail Springs), Expressway (& May).

[Plutonic Panda]

But how many people provide tax dollars for OKC at the same level of density in those *neighborhoods*. What produces and has produced more (sales) tax dollars, Hefner/MacArthur/Council/Memorial or 235/Reno/Pennsylvania/23rd?

PCN, Westmoore, Founder's District and Quail Springs don't all get to be called "The Suburbs" collectively. They're all individual units and the question is do they produce on the same level as downtown? Maybe 4 to 8 other areas produced on the same level as or higher than the Core did when MAPS originally passed…now…maybe 3: I-240, Memorial (Quail Springs), Expressway (& May).

It doesn't matter. What matters is, where it is coming from. Anyhow, I'll you or anyone have the last word. This is about population growth, not tax income.

[HangryHippo]

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

[Plutonic Panda]

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

I disagree. It is nice to have that much because in the future, it will allow us to have much higher population counts that will benefit us. Mustang might want to consider annexing some land to the southwest, but other than that, I think what we have is fine.

[Just the facts]

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.

[ljbab728]

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.

[Just the facts]

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.

[AP]

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

[KayneMo]

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!

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.

[bchris02]

Here's a quick drawing I did, this was pretty fun to do!

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.

[KayneMo]

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!

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.

[BG918]

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.

[dmoor82]

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.

[Bunty]

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

Enid goes over 50,000.

[Laramie]

2013 Population estimates for all Oklahoma towns here: Census rarity: Tulsa 2013 population change outpaces Broken Arrow - Tulsa World: Newshomepage2

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

List of Metropolitan Statistical Areas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

"Oklahoma City looks oh-so pretty... ...as I get my kicks on Route 66." --Nat King Cole.

[Mississippi Blues]

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

[soonerguru]

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"?

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.

[josh]

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"?

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.

[Bellaboo]

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.

[soonerguru]

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

Sorry I misread to be 21.8%.

[G.Walker]

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.

[adaniel]

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

[hoya]

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

[dmoor82]

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?