Population Growth for OKC

[ChrisHayes]

I wonder what Oklahoma City's projected population is. But, like a couple others have said, I don't buy it. My primary reason for not buying is the demographic problems we're starting to have. Lower birth rates and an aging population mean that many cities will stagnate in growth in the coming decades.

[HOT ROD]

I think 3 million is the sweet spot for OKC metro, maybe 1.5 million in the city limits. Beyond that and OKC loses the rural and suburban “appeal” in a very big way. We’re half way there, 710k city and 1.5m metro, so basically double today.

[BG918]

I think 3 million is the sweet spot for OKC metro, maybe 1.5 million in the city limits. Beyond that and OKC loses the rural and suburban “appeal” in a very big way. We’re half way there, 710k city and 1.5m metro, so basically double today.

That only works well if there is a good commuter rail system in place along the Edmond-OKC-Moore-Norman corridor and some type of east-west corridor as well. There is no way for the metro to handle that many people without a larger investment in rail transit.

That being said I would imagine there will be more growth on the east and NE side of the metro with the highway expansion there to counter the recent growth on the west side. I think growth stalls on the north side in favor of more growth in the south and SW metro around Norman, which in itself could be a city of 250k

[PoliSciGuy]

I wonder what Oklahoma City's projected population is. But, like a couple others have said, I don't buy it. My primary reason for not buying is the demographic problems we're starting to have. Lower birth rates and an aging population mean that many cities will stagnate in growth in the coming decades.

All the more reason to allow more immigration. Also, the cities will be the last place to feel this pinch. The rural and exurban areas will see this pinch happen first (and in fact already are).

[Mountaingoat]

All the more reason to allow more immigration. Also, the cities will be the last place to feel this pinch. The rural and exurban areas will see this pinch happen first (and in fact already are).

I'm all for significant immigration because it's necessary to sustain economic growth, just not undocumented, uncontrolled immigration.

[PhiAlpha]

I'm all for significant immigration because it's necessary to sustain economic growth, just not undocumented, uncontrolled immigration.

bingo

[Just the facts]

We don't need population growth just for the sake of trying to maintain unsustainable growth. What we need are sustainable cities based on sustainable economics. For example, stop deficit spending based on the idea that debt incurred today can be paid back in the future because there will be more people to pay it. Simply living within our civic means would solve the problem.

[soonerguru]

I'm all for significant immigration because it's necessary to sustain economic growth, just not undocumented, uncontrolled immigration.

This is a catch 22. One reason we have so many undocumented immigrants is that we don't have an easier path for legal immigration. We need to simplify and streamline the pathway for legal immigration.

Of course, whenever such policy is introduced in Congress, the xenophopes come out and use hate radio and extreme political rhetoric to kill it. One example was when George W was president and worked with John McCain to introduce an immigration reform bill. Rush Limbaugh started screaming about it nonstop, riling up the angry people who don't understand the issues involved.

The point is, we need immigration to have a functional labor force, something the xenophobes either don't understand or simply ignore.

Nothing is ever as simple as a bumper sticker. Issues like immigration in particular are nuanced. Trafficking in fearful and hateful rhetoric is easier than discussing complex issues.

One irony here is that rural areas in particular are declining in population, and would benefit the most from easier legal immigration, but are often the most virulently anti-immigrant.

Another massive irony is that these same areas rely desperately on illegal immigrant labor to prop up their agricultural economic base.

[Laramie]

We talk about immigration and the need for it which is purely from an economic benefit; let's get serious, if we need people to help harvest our crops, then why not open up a patch to citizenship.

Don't forget our state's moto; 'Labor omnia vincit.'

[HOT ROD]

That only works well if there is a good commuter rail system in place along the Edmond-OKC-Moore-Norman corridor and some type of east-west corridor as well. There is no way for the metro to handle that many people without a larger investment in rail transit.

That being said I would imagine there will be more growth on the east and NE side of the metro with the highway expansion there to counter the recent growth on the west side. I think growth stalls on the north side in favor of more growth in the south and SW metro around Norman, which in itself could be a city of 250k

All of those transportation options are planned and in final design (OKC RTD and the SE freeway/turnpike extensions). I agree more infrastructure is needed for the E metro and that’s coming, but the city could density without major additions and be just fine.

[GoGators]

I wonder what Oklahoma City's projected population is. But, like a couple others have said, I don't buy it. My primary reason for not buying is the demographic problems we're starting to have. Lower birth rates and an aging population mean that many cities will stagnate in growth in the coming decades.

I was just listening to a report this morning that the census released the median age in the US for 2022. The number was 38.9 years, which is a record high. 17 states now have a median age over 40.

[chssooner]

Lower birth rates are happening everywhere. Kids are too expensive to have. So many families are deciding on either no more or none at all. I can't blame them one bit.

[PoliSciGuy]

Lower birth rates are happening everywhere. Kids are too expensive to have. So many families are deciding on either no more or none at all. I can't blame them one bit.

It's also part of a broader sociological phenomenon, demographic transition theory. In general, as societies become more economically developed, their birth rates shrink for a few reasons:
- Women marry later as they pursue education and work, this leads to women having fewer children
- Infant mortality decreases, which leads to families "needing" to have fewer kids as more make it to adulthood and also kids do not need to work to provide for the family
- Better healthcare produces better access to contraception and other family planning impacts

This is why populations are declining in most of the developed world, why China's population will continue to shrink as it becomes more economically developed, and why Africa is going to be the continent with the most population growth over the course of this century.

[SEMIweather]

IMO, OKC is well-positioned for continued growth due to the following factors:

1) Relatively close to DFW, Austin, and Houston, all of which are rapidly growing and becoming significantly more expensive as time goes on.
2) Connected to the national electric grid, which could eventually be looked at as a major advantage relative to DFW, Austin, and Houston if events such as the February 2021 breakdown of the Texas grid become more common.
3) Very favorable long-term water management compared to places such as Denver, Las Vegas, and Phoenix.

[BG918]

Oklahoma's growth trajectory will likely mirror Tennessee with OKC/Tulsa combined as an economic engine with a population similar to Nashville. Like Tennessee, rural areas in the western counties will continue to depopulate with southern counties benefitting from the northward expansion of DFW, similar to SE TN counties because of Atlanta. Oklahoma is in a favorable Mid-South climate with plenty of water in the eastern sections, though drought is more common here and could be more severe with climate change.

[soonerguru]

IMO, OKC is well-positioned for continued growth due to the following factors:

1) Relatively close to DFW, Austin, and Houston, all of which are rapidly growing and becoming significantly more expensive as time goes on.
2) Connected to the national electric grid, which could eventually be looked at as a major advantage relative to DFW, Austin, and Houston if events such as the February 2021 breakdown of the Texas grid become more common.
3) Very favorable long-term water management compared to places such as Denver, Las Vegas, and Phoenix.

Excellent points. It would be great if OKC were added to the national high-speed rail network as well, along with continuing to add better air service options.

[Teo9969]

I would argue that an even larger factor might be that as we've moved from a high-trust society to a low-trust society and become even more individualized over the last 30-40 years, it has become more and more difficult to cultivate the kind of support system that once made raising children a more manageable task. "It takes a village to raise a child" is a proverb for a reason.

This seems correct now having a kid with only a single grandparent in the vicinity. We also don't do church. We have some close friends with Children and we're financially secure and "older" parents, but holy crap it's hard to imagine taking on a 2nd

[BG918]

2022 metro area population estimates show OKC and Tulsa with healthy growth. For the top 55 metros from 2020-2022 OKC is ranked 13th with a 2.06% change and Tulsa is ranked 16th with a 1.66% change. Austin was #1 with 5.3% growth followed by Raleigh-Durham at 4.71%, Jacksonville at 3.90%, Dallas/Ft Worth at 3.62% and San Antonio at 3.39%.

OKC 2022 metro population: 1,459,380
Tulsa 2022 metro population: 1,034,123
Combined: 2,493,503

[Laramie]

2022 metro area population estimates show OKC and Tulsa with healthy growth. For the top 55 metros from 2020-2022 OKC is ranked 13th with a 2.06% change and Tulsa is ranked 16th with a 1.66% change. Austin was #1 with 5.3% growth followed by Raleigh-Durham at 4.71%, Jacksonville at 3.90%, Dallas/Ft Worth at 3.62% and San Antonio at 3.39%.

OKC 2022 metro population: 1,459,380
Tulsa 2022 metro population: 1,034,123
Combined: 2,493,503

Thanks for these figures 2,493,503 in 2022 estimates represent 62% of the state's 4,019,800 population figure concentrated in the two largest metropolitan areas.

[BG918]

Thanks for these figures 2,493,503 in 2022 estimates represent 62% of the state's 4,019,800 population figure concentrated in the two largest metropolitan areas.

2022 Oklahoma City CSA: 1,532,913
2022 Tulsa CSA: 1,153,719
Combined: 2,686,632 - 67% of total

[BimmerSooner]

Thanks for the numbers. Holding that rate steady for the OKC metro until 2030 would show an increase of 10.73% from 2020 to 2030. That would be the lowest growth rate since 1930-1940 at 10.1%. Not saying that's the number we'll be at in 2030, but that's the start we are off to mathematically, at least. Not what I would have expected.

[chssooner]

Thanks for the numbers. Holding that rate steady for the OKC metro until 2030 would show an increase of 10.73% from 2020 to 2030. That would be the lowest growth rate since 1930-1940 at 10.1%. Not saying that's the number we'll be at in 2030, but that's the start we are off to mathematically, at least. Not what I would have expected.

100,000 or if a million is 10%. 25,000 out of 100,000 is 25%. See where I'm going with this?

[Pete]

I deleted a ton of completely political posts about inflation.

For those that keep injecting that kind of crap into every conceivable topic, you are going to get banned.

[Pete]

Thanks for the numbers. Holding that rate steady for the OKC metro until 2030 would show an increase of 10.73% from 2020 to 2030. That would be the lowest growth rate since 1930-1940 at 10.1%. Not saying that's the number we'll be at in 2030, but that's the start we are off to mathematically, at least. Not what I would have expected.

Yes, very disappointing.

I've made the point over and over again that a huge percentage of OKC's growth is due to people moving from small towns in the state. At some point, that number has to slow down simply because all those rural areas are shrinking in population.

[PhiAlpha]

Yeah cannibalizing from rural OK is not a long term growth strategy. There’s a massive demographic sorting going on right now as folks with means are looking for states that align with their politics (not trying to get political!). We have a lot going for us - low cost of living, growing downtown core, great local leadership - we just need to overcome our broader national reputation.

If it’s all about politics and the associated national reputation, why is Texas growing so much faster than we are?