Is Oklahoma City "Mid-Sized"?

[Patrick]

Here's the site I received my info from: http://www.city-data.com/top1.html

[Luke]

But, don't those areas have a much higher metro population?

[Midtowner]

From Wikipedia Re: density/size:

According to the United States Census Bureau, the city has a total area of 1,608.8 km² (621.2 mi²). 1,572.1 km² (607.0 mi²) of it is land and 36.7 km² (14.2 mi²) of it is water. The total area is 2.28% water.

Oklahoma City is the third largest city in the country in terms of geographic area, although its urbanized zone is only 244 mi² - resulting in an urban population density more comparable to that found in other major cities with unlimited growth available far into the future.

Patrick, as for a more fair list of populations including entire metros (I don't think it's very telling to just compare city sizes since we have such a large land mass and such a low density):

Rank Metropolitan Area States/Territories Type Population Other names*

1 New York--North Jersey--Long Island--Bridgeport--New Haven NY--NJ--CT--PA CMSA 21,199,865 Tri-state Area, New York area, Greater New York
2 Los Angeles--Riverside--Orange County CA CMSA 16,373,645 The Southland, Southern California (The latter also refers to the entire southern portion of the state)
3 Chicago--Joliet--Naperville--Gary--Kenosha IL--IN--WI CMSA 9,157,540 Chicagoland, Greater Chicago, Chicagoland and Northwest Indiana (the latter refers to the eastern part extended until South Bend, Indiana)
4 Washington--Baltimore DC--MD--VA--WV CMSA 7,608,070 Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Area
5 San Francisco--Oakland--San Jose CA CMSA 7,039,362 The Bay Area
6 Philadelphia--Wilmington--Atlantic City PA--NJ--DE--MD CMSA 6,188,463 The Delaware Valley
7 Boston--Worcester--Lawrence MA--NH--ME--CT CMSA 5,819,100 Greater Boston
8 Detroit--Ann Arbor--Flint** MI CMSA 5,456,428 Metro Detroit
9 Dallas--Fort Worth--Arlington TX CMSA 5,221,801 The Metroplex, DFW
10 Houston--Galveston--Brazoria--Baytown--Sugar Land TX CMSA 4,669,571 Houston Metropolitan Area
11 Atlanta GA MSA 4,112,198 Atlanta Metropolitan Area
12 Miami--Ft. Lauderdale FL CMSA 3,876,380 South Florida metropolitan area
13 Seattle--Tacoma--Bremerton WA CMSA 3,554,760 Greater Puget Sound
14 Phoenix--Mesa AZ MSA 3,251,876 The Valley of the Sun
15 Minneapolis--St. Paul MN, WI MSA 2,968,806 The Twin Cities
16 Cleveland--Akron OH CMSA 2,945,831 Greater Cleveland, Northeast Ohio
17 San Diego CA MSA 2,813,833
18 St. Louis MO, IL MSA 2,603,607 Greater St. Louis
19 Denver--Boulder--Greeley CO CMSA 2,581,506
20 San Juan--Caguas--Arecibo PR CMSA 2,450,292
21 Tampa--St. Petersburg--Clearwater FL MSA 2,395,997 Tampa Bay Area
22 Pittsburgh--New Castle PA MSA 2,512,302
23 Portland--Salem--Vancouver OR, WA CMSA 1,979,202
24 Cincinnati--Hamilton OH, KY, IN CMSA 1,979,202 Greater Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky
25 Sacramento--Yolo County CA CMSA 1,796,857

[HOT ROD]

I'm surprised....I always thought Atlanta and KC were larger than OKC. 2002 numbers: Pop of KC: 443,471, Atlanta: 424,868, OKC: 519,034

So, I guess size doesn't make a difference when it comes to pro sports teams, venues, etc. We're larger than Atlanta, KC, Cleveland, Las Vegas, Oakland, St. Louis, Buffalo, Louisville, etc. In size, we actually compete more with Denver, Portland, Las Vegas, Seattle, New Orleans, etc.

Patrick:

This is what I've been saying all along. OKC is a large city!

[windowphobe]

While admittedly it would take rather a long time to fill up 607 square miles, I'm not in favor of deannexing anything unless the residents in a specific area ask for it. One of the reasons that a number of more-highly-regarded cities have slipped behind us is that they have nowhere at all to expand. (The poster child for this is St Louis, which is forever stuck in its little curve of the river, now with half the population it had fifty years ago.)

Besides, there are still people who want to avoid the city school district at any cost, regardless of whatever upgrades it's made, and if we can keep them in the city while they go to a suburban district, we're still ahead of the game. This task would be more difficult if we had less land area.

[Patrick]

Okay, I see....much of the population in those other metro areas comes from suburbs. Still, interestingly, when you just compare city-size itself, I find it interesting that OKC is larger.
But, our numbers are probably a little over-inflated, because our city leaders back in the day decided to annex everything and anything. We once were the largest city in land area.

Anyways, thanks Midtowner for the info. By the way, what site did you get it from?

[floater]

Oklahoma City's large physical size has turned out to be a blessing because it does capture the more affluent subdivisions and neighborhoods. Not a lot of cities can claim that their premier shopping center is within the city limits (Penn Square in OKC's case). OKC's sales tax collections, as well as its retail reputation would be smaller if Penn Square, Northwest Expressway, and some nicer subdivisions in South OKC weren't part of the city.

And windowphobe's point is true re: room to develop. OKC perhaps consumed too much when it annexed, but the ability to capture newer development that will attract wealthier households is an asset.

[Patrick]

In a lot of cities the suburban style development going on on Memorial Rd. also wouldn't be included in the city's sales tax collections. So I suppose we're blessed to have city lines that stretch that far. The only drawback is that we have to maintain infrastructure to some of those "far-out" locations.

[HOT ROD]

But, our numbers are probably a little over-inflated, because our city leaders back in the day decided to annex everything and anything. We once were the largest city in land area.

Patrick, I dont think OKC's numbers are overinflated. If you consider that OKC's Pop is near 540,000 and much of that is in the urbanized area.

From an earlier post, we now know that OKC's urbanized area is only 244 sq miles, I imagine at least 95% of OKC's city pop is in that urbanized area.

We could spit off 250 sq miles easy, and not lose population. I say, let OK county run the rural and watershed areas. Why does OKC need to do that?

[floater]

In a lot of cities the suburban style development going on on Memorial Rd. also wouldn't be included in the city's sales tax collections. So I suppose we're blessed to have city lines that stretch that far. The only drawback is that we have to maintain infrastructure to some of those "far-out" locations.

For sure, Patrick.

[windowphobe]

Well, we've actually backed off somewhat; in the late Sixties the city was up to 640 square miles. (A few blocks down I-44 into McClain County and a fenceline in the far northwest have since been deannexed; Newcastle now controls that section of McClain.)

And there are still chunks of nearby space that have so far avoided annexation: the area around Trice Hill Cemetery (NE 50th and Coltrane) has eluded both Oklahoma City and Forest Park.

[HOT ROD]

guys,

i am not suggestion we deannex memorial road or any other built-up area. Those are part of OKC's urbanized area (even tho they are suburban), its still Oklahoma City cityl

What I am suggesting to deannex is the SE portion of the city after Draper lake (east and south of it), the North east portion of the city (all of it NE of Forest Park), and Western OKC (west of the built-up areas of Sarah Rd).

The first two sections were deemed necessary to ensure development did not encroach upon the city's watershed. Well, there are state laws that could zone watershed as limited development - and we could let OK county manage the land/services.

Those two rural section s alone probably equate to 200 sq miles. The far western section is not watershed, but IMO OKC being "greedy". If we skim it off, OKC could probably drop another 50 sq mi. That would put us at 356 sq miles, pretty close to our urbanized area (244 sq mi) and we would still have over 100 sq miles to grow (assuming less than 20 sq miles is lake water - uninhabitable).

That is all I am saying, carve off the non-productive areas way out in the middle of nowhere. Let the county serve that area and the state protect the watershed. that way, more resources could be dedicated to the inner city - where the people live/work.