Population Growth for OKC

[josh]

I'm not going to argue the relative population densities of OKC and Portland, but in general just because a city has a larger area doesn't mean that its population is evenly distributed throughout that area. A city may have an area of 400 sq miles, but if 80% of the city's population is in the inner 200 sq miles then does the total area even matter in regards to relative comparisons?

This is the Portland city boundary (blue) laid over the Oklahoma City boundary (white) for comparison.

[HangryHippo]

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

[AP]

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

[bchris02]

This is the Portland city boundary (blue) laid over the Oklahoma City boundary (white) for comparison.

A lot of the land within the blue area actually belongs to Nichols Hills, Warr Acres, the Village, and Bethany. There's some overlap into Del City as well.

Now I am not saying OKC is even close to the kind of density Portland has, but if you counted only developed area, it would probably look a lot better than most think.

[Plutonic Panda]

This is the Portland city boundary (blue) laid over the Oklahoma City boundary (white) for comparison.

Here are some comparisons for you.



NYC overlapped in OKC



That is from KayneMo's post in 30 maps thread

Manhattan has a population of a little over 1.6 million in 23 square miles.
OKC has an urban population (not including Norman but including Edmond) of about 865,000 in 411 square miles.

So just because OKC is bigger in terms of land mass, doesn't really mean it's unfair to compare it with Portland. OKC is a bit behind Portland, but we can catch up pretty quick if our economy keeps improving and we experience a boom.

[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.

[DavidD_NorthOKC]

I think it usually does. So if 80% of the population is within that inner 200 square miles, should they have to subsidize the 20% who want to live beyond existing city services? Our development patterns of the last several decades are not efficient nor sustainable long term. Since people often whine government should act more like business, would a business build infrastructure in that manner or would they maximize the use of a smaller system? There are ways to grow smartly that includes suburbs, but you generally don't keep building homes in the next pasture and let the inner areas rot.

[Plutonic Panda]

I think it usually does. So if 80% of the population is within that inner 200 square miles, should they have to subsidize the 20% who want to live beyond existing city services? Our development patterns of the last several decades are not efficient nor sustainable long term. Since people often whine government should act more like business, would a business build infrastructure in that manner or would they maximize the use of a smaller system?

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?

[DavidD_NorthOKC]

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?

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

You're right, it isn't debatable. The fact of the matter is that more people live in the suburbs and provide more money than people living in DD, Midtown, and any other place in the core. The people voted for MAPS which has transformed our city for the better with sales tax that were mainly provided by people living in suburban areas of the city and Edmond, Norman etc.

[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.

[ljbab728]

Because it's a much much wider net for OKC.

In a vacuum, the city vs. city population for OKC and Portland is very symmetric because of the large land area advantage for OKC and the small land area disadvantage for Portland.

600,000 in a 607 square mile area is not as impressive as 600,000 people in a 133 square mile area. The density difference is tremendous.

The same can be said for San Antonio and San Francisco. San Antonio has a city population of 1.4 million within 461 square miles. The city likes to brag about being the '7th" largest city in the US, which is factually correct but means very little when a city like San Francisco has 840,000 people within an area of 47 square miles. That's impressive. Imagine if San Francisco expanded its city boundaries by another 414 square miles. They'd be a top 3 or 4 city with regards to population. If San Antonio reduced their city boundaries by 414, it'd have a much smaller population, way outside the top 10. What exactly does that change other than meaningless bragging rights?

San Francisco will still be San Francisco and San Antonio will still be San Antonio.

City populations in this day and age are very arbitrary and mean very little. Metro and urban populations are much more tangible and valuable.

That's all fine but it misses the point of my post. I was responding to a post that it wasn't fair to compare the population of OKC to Portland because of the difference in land area. You can certainly compare population size without having to consider the land area. We weren't talking about population density.

[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.

[Mississippi Blues]

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

[adaniel]

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

[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.

[hoya]

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

[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.

[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?

[adaniel]

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?

Well, I tend to think the term "booming" is just semantics. I would politely disagree with the 20% threshold considering thats based off of last decade's growth in this country, which average a hair under 10% or about 1% a year. So 20% would just be doubled. The US is now only growing about 0.7%/year and mobility among the US population is at a multi-decade low, so I think anything over double that would be considered booming.

Another way to look at it is any city that's in the top 15%-20% of cities in growth in terms of percentage. Out of the 293 cities in the US with populations over 100K, OKC is roughly in the top 14%

[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.

[bchris02]

It's pretty well known that OKC isn't experiencing the type of crazy growth that Austin, DFW, Charlotte, Raleigh, etc are. However, this city's growth is still very healthy and remarkable. It says a lot that OKC's growth is ahead of certain media darlings like Portland, Denver, Minneapolis, and others.

[Laramie]

Population density and what it costs to provide the normal utilities and services expected in a modern city. The more people per given amount of land, the lower it costs to serve those people. It is a legitimate consideration and issue especially if people would like to keep taxes at a reasonable level.

So how does that apply to OKC's population growth? The pyramid scheme we have created and continue to perpetuate by the manner the city has spread out - just because it could without any thought given to what happens when all that infrastructure that serves a relatively small number of people for the investment required to maintain and eventually replace. Why don't we incentivize redeveloping areas that are now considered blighted or "going downhill" rather than facilitating building another subdivision in the next empty field outside the ones being built today? Do that until the population is high enough to justify another ring. This is the usual debate we see on the site, but it is one we should have. I don't know anyone ready to bulldoze existing suburbs but we can do better if we are smarter with future development.

So true, you're witness to a lot of redevelopment inside the core.

Oklahoma City has a lot of unoccupied land. Most of the land that is densely populated centers around the core of the city as growth continues outward. Was told that OKC continued to occupy all that land for tax purposes for which the county, city and state benefits. You may have a similar situation in Kentucky with Louisville & Jefferson County's agreement. These unoccupied lands are a future investment.

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

[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.