Population Growth for OKC

[G.Walker]

OKC including Shawnee is not unreasonable, but Tulsa including Bartlesville, Muskogee, and Tahlequah is absurd. It would less absurd if the OKC CMSA were to include Chickasha, Stillwater, and Pauls Valley.

I agree, I think CSA population data should be limited to cities that are within a 30 mile radius.

I also always wondered why the census bureau hasn't classified the metro area as the Oklahoma City-Norman MSA, as they do other cities, with Norman having roughly 120,000 people and 20 miles away?

For example, the Birmingham metro area is classified as the Birmingham-Hoover, AL MSA, with Hoover, AL being 18 miles away to the south of Birmingham, and has a population of 85,000...

[adaniel]

Official data is out: American FactFinder - Results

The 1,336,767 is the correct count for the OKC metro area, good job adaniel!

We are coming very close to passing Memphis, with their metro population at 1,343,230...

Thanks!

I should add I'm almost certain the Census readjusted OKC's 2013 population (which they do from time to time), so that shaves about 900, or 0.1% off this years official growth rate. Everything else should be correct.

We are still at 41 largest metro, but we should pass Memphis next year even with the prospect of slightly slower growth; the rate of change there is practically nonexistant. Sad since that is my dad's hometown.

Even still, we rank 79 out of 381 (21st percentile) in terms of percentage growth.

Something I just noticed as well. At OKC's current population, we represent about 35% of the state's total population yet are accounting for 67% of the state's growth since 2010. Please keep this in mind next time some bubba legislator shakes their fist about how OKC gets all the funding and attention.

[Chicken In The Rough]

OKC including Shawnee is not unreasonable, but Tulsa including Bartlesville, Muskogee, and Tahlequah is absurd. It would less absurd if the OKC CMSA were to include Chickasha, Stillwater, and Pauls Valley.

My thoughts, exactly. I was really wondering why these cities are included in Tulsa's CSA.

[bchris02]

Calculating MSA and CSA are dependent on commute patterns. I personally dislike the CSA metric. While it can be good for showing cities' economic influence a lot of times counties are included that are in no way part of the immediate metro area. There are some exceptions like Raleigh and Durham in NC, but for 99% of metro areas in the US I go by the MSA population and ignore the CSA.

[adaniel]

OKC including Shawnee is not unreasonable, but Tulsa including Bartlesville, Muskogee, and Tahlequah is absurd. It would less absurd if the OKC CMSA were to include Chickasha, Stillwater, and Pauls Valley.

As bchris stated, all about commuting patterns, my friend. The official breakdown is if 25% of a county's workforce is driving into a designated core "urban county" then it's part of the MSA, if it is less than 25% but more than 15% AND it can at least stand as a separate micropolitan area or MSA itself, than it is part of the CSA. Can't speak for Muskogee or Tahlequah/Cherokee County, but I know a ton of people commute b/w Tulsa and Bartlesville (ConocoPhillips), certainly as many between OKC and Shawnee.

And this is far from the most extreme example. Allentown PA is now part of the Greater NYC CSA even though its 90 miles to Mahattan. Durant is now part of Dallas/FW CSA even though its 95 miles to DTD. The most extreme one I found was Vero Beach being a part of Miami CSA, even though its about 140 miles to Miami.

[Spartan]

I know that Census data is empirical and blind, but the issue is that so many funding-related things, such as congestion mitigation funding from FTA/USDOT, brownfields money, tax credits, Section 8 vouchers, and more - all tied to these designated geographies. As was mentioned earlier, OKC is accounting for 67% of the state's growth despite that Tulsa's CMSA covers all of NE Oklahoma. This is a problem because not only does the state fail to support OKC, but they usually pass laws specifically designed to hinder the success of Oklahoma City's revitalization.

The Chamber Junta got the NBA tax credit, but since then it's been bad. Transportation funding still treats OKC and Tulsa as if they are somehow equal, when in fact OKC is over 50% bigger and will soon be twice as large. That's the reality. ODOT refuses to incorporate any design dignity into anything they do in downtown. The legislature specifically targets OKC's minorities (Oklahoma County has the second highest percentage of non-whites after Texas County) and OKC's urban revitalization mechanisms (eminent domain, backward condo laws, and vacant/abandoned registry for just three examples). Now in order to get funding to someday finish the AICC, we also have to support equal pork funding for some tchotchke "Tulsa's Route 66 Can You Believe It Or Not Museum of Oklahoma Pop Culture In The Brady District" or whatever.

The way that this parallel universe of state government remains stacked against OKC is a three-pronged phenomenon: 1, Incredibly strong lobbies for rural and backward interests; 2, Gerrymandering that includes Westmoore HS in the same senate district as Duncan, Oklatucky.; and 3, Insufficiently aggressive local leadership to overcome this.

[Plutonic Panda]

These numbers suck.

[bchris02]

These numbers suck.

I really wonder what Oklahoma is doing differently than the other side of the Red River that is causing so much more tepid growth. Some like to include OKC and Tulsa in the Texas triangle yet growth up here doesn't come close to what the metro areas in Texas are seeing. Even the smaller Texas metros like Midland-Odessa are seeing huge percentage gains. Meanwhile OKC is only seeing moderate growth and Tulsa is pretty close to stagnant. There isn't any real reason that OKC and Tulsa's MSA shouldn't both be 2% year over year or higher. Oklahoma's economic base is not all that different from Texas. What are they doing on the other side of the Red River that isn't being done here?

[Motley]

I really wonder what Oklahoma is doing differently than the other side of the Red River that is causing so much more tepid growth. Some like to include OKC and Tulsa in the Texas triangle yet growth up here doesn't come close to what the metro areas in Texas are seeing. Even the smaller Texas metros like Midland-Odessa are seeing huge percentage gains. Meanwhile OKC is only seeing moderate growth and Tulsa is pretty close to stagnant. There isn't any real reason that OKC and Tulsa's MSA shouldn't both be 2% year over year or higher. Oklahoma's economic base is not all that different from Texas. What are they doing on the other side of the Red River that isn't being done here?

There has to be some study on the matter and a historian can trace the growth of Dallas and Houston compared to the surroundings.

Overall taxes in Texas are on par with OK or higher, but they can claim no income taxes and that is attractive on its face. They had strong leadership in Congress and the Presidency which led to some investment benefits over other areas. Houston was a shipping hub and Dallas a rail hub years ago. Not sure how that evolved. Years ago Dallas was known as an center for insurance and cotton and banking, so it seems it was established a very long time ago as a regional hub.

[Plutonic Panda]

Dallas has huge sprawling highways, great 6 lane roads, beautiful landscaping, extensive light rail system and bus system that is constantly getting upgrades.

OKC needs to start expanding our highways, build a light rail system through out the metro, widen and reconstruct our roads, expand our airport, beautify the city, and kick these idiots out of office who keep proposing these backwards bills.

I think the two biggest factors in our sh!tty growth is lack of infrastructure and backwards politics.

[adaniel]

Here comes the hand wringing.....

Lord knows I don't like being defensive here cause we all know OK needs to work on some things, but even with a slowdown this year OKC is in the top fifth of metros as far as growth rates are concerned.

Its important to note about 2/3rds of TXs growth is coming from naturally expanding Hispanic population, either through immigration or birth rates. So I don't see how you can compare the two on a large scale.

This area needs to keep creating jobs and investing in itself independent of what the state does, but growth just for growth's sake is what cancer cells do. Its not a viable municipal strategy.

[Motley]

Dallas's light rail and wide freeways only happened after Dallas was larger than OKC is now. I can't compare today's OKC with today's Dallas. Look at Dallas when is was a metro area of 1.3million and compare their infrastructure to OKCs.

[Plutonic Panda]

Regardless, the numbers released are not impressive and this place just doesn't feel like it's booming.

[Motley]

DART began in 1983. Dallas was already a city of 900,000 by then.

[Jake]

Can't imagine the responses if OKC was actually doing poorly.

[Plutonic Panda]

Dallas's light rail and wide freeways only happened after Dallas was larger than OKC is now. I can't compare today's OKC with today's Dallas. Look at Dallas when is was a metro area of 1.3million and compare their infrastructure to OKCs.

the highways aren't much larger than what is in OKC on the fringes. A lot of the highways in the DFW metro are 6 lanes. They are just better built and designed.

[adaniel]

God I hate that word....booming. What is that supposed to entail, anyway? What are the standards for it?

I've heard people on this board use the term "booming" to describe Los Angeles and Miami, yet according to these population statistics they experienced quite a bit of outmigration (i,e, people are leaving these areas).

On the flip side, some of the stronger economies in the middle of the country like Omaha and Minneapolis (places that are supposed to be "booming") or even Richmond VA or Salt Lake City recorded solid yet modest growth, or at a minimum, less than OKC. So what are we to make of these figures?

[Plutonic Panda]

DART began in 1983. Dallas was already a city of 900,000 by then.

You're an employer and you want rail based transit in your city. So let me ask you something, are you going to care about how, when, and why it was built? No. What matters is that it is there. Plenty of other cities the size of OKC or close to it have light rail.

[Plutonic Panda]

God I hate that word....booming. What is that supposed to entail, anyway? What are the standards for it?

I've heard people on this board use the term "booming" to describe Los Angeles and Miami, yet according to these population statistics they experienced quite a bit of outmigration (i,e, people are leaving these areas).

On the flip side, some of the stronger economies in the middle of the country like Omaha and Minneapolis (places that are supposed to be "booming") or even Richmond VA or Salt Lake City recorded solid yet modest growth, or at a minimum, less than OKC. So what are we to make of these figures?

yet Miami and LA are still recording population growth. They are desirable cities. OKC is not

I wish OKC could be and I know it can. We need to invest more in our schools, roads, highways, and mass transit. Growth follows infrastructure, not the other way around.

[Motley]

Go back and see what funded Dallas and Houston's huge freeways. A few decades ago, both cities suffered from some of the worse traffic in the USA. It got to the point they had to act and committed to freeway construction. The current freeway system and DART were born from a crisis in their transportation network. OKC is NO WHERE near the mess that forced Dallas and Houston to act.

[adaniel]

yet Miami and LA are still recording population growth. They are desirable cities. OKC is not

You clearly misunderstood me. They are recording population growth because of immigrants and a high birth rate. Native born residents are leaving. Over 12,000 in Miami/Ft Lauderdale and over 61,000 in LA/OC. That's just in one year.

[Motley]

Now is the time for OKC and OK to work on infrastructure and schools. No doubt about it; all I am saying is that OKC is not that much different from Dallas was when it was the size of OKC. Dallas was well behind many cities in the 80s and caught up as they grew. OKC must pick up the pace, but by all accounts it is doing so now. Boston, NYC, DC, Chicago, Atlanta, SF, and Philly all had rail well before Dallas did. Dallas woke up and caught up. OKC awoke, it just needs to make sure it now invests as Dallas did.

[Plutonic Panda]

I don't care at the moment if we don't widen a single highway. Our interchanges need to be rebuilt and stacked. No bs excuses of not having room which seems like that same one is used to defend all of these cloverleaf half ass interchange.

Kilpatrick needs to be extended into a new loop that goes around Norman to I40. New highway for east Oklahoma county. A new highway cutting through Moore. SH74 turned into a four lane divided wrapped around Edmond over Waterloo. NW 39th turned into below grade 8 lane highway with service roads and capped under Bethany. May, Penn, Western, SE 89th, and a number of other roads widened to six lanes with turn lands and median with landscaping. New mass transit upgrades and bus routes upgraded. New bike lanes and greenway throughout the city connecting Edmond-OKC and Norman.

Commuter rail Piedmont-Guthrie-Edmond-OKC-Norman-Blanchard-Chickasha. Light rail from Norman-OKC-Midwest City-Yukon-Mustang-Edmond. HSR connecting OKC-Dallas-Austin-Houston-San Antonio.

So that, the city will boom.

[Plutonic Panda]

Now is the time for OKC and OK to work on infrastructure and schools. No doubt about it; all I am saying is that OKC is not that much different from Dallas was when it was the size of OKC. Dallas was well behind many cities in the 80s and caught up as they grew. OKC must pick up the pace, but by all accounts it is doing so now. Boston, NYC, DC, Chicago, Atlanta, SF, and Philly all had rail well before Dallas did. Dallas woke up and caught up. OKC awoke, it just needs to make sure it now invests as Dallas did.

That is very fair and I agree with you.

[Plutonic Panda]

You clearly misunderstood me. They are recording population growth because of immigrants and a high birth rate. Native born residents are leaving. Over 12,000 in Miami/Ft Lauderdale and over 61,000 in LA/OC. That's just in one year.

I see.