Population Growth for OKC

[Ross MacLochness]

I would advocate for more sprawl as it's cheaper for the government to subsidize freeways and give people cheaper living options increasing quality of life. Less density gives more bang for their buck.

Cheaper for the city in the short term.. The value per acre of low density sprawl is rarely enough to pay for the maintenance of roads and services needed over time. The quality of life you speak of is heavily subsidized. If people who lived in sprawling subdivisions had to pay for the extra miles of roads, water pipe , police, fire, etc. to make up for the lack of tax revenue it would be extremely expensive to live there.

I understand that we are a suburban city, nation. We can't just bomb all the sprawl and start over. All I am saying is that since we aren't a mega metro yet, we can begin to think about alternatives to auto based sprawl. and restrict that type of development from here on out. We have room and time to build infrastructure that is inherently more economically stable and we can begin to create an atmosphere that is pleasant by reducing the necessity of the automobile.

[Plutonic Panda]

Cheaper for the city in the short term.. The value per acre of low density sprawl is rarely enough to pay for the maintenance of roads and services needed over time. The quality of life you speak of is heavily subsidized. If people who lived in sprawling subdivisions had to pay for the extra miles of roads, water pipe , police, fire, etc. to make up for the lack of tax revenue it would be extremely expensive to live there.

I understand that we are a suburban city, nation. We can't just bomb all the sprawl and start over. All I am saying is that since we aren't a mega metro yet, we can begin to think about alternatives to auto based sprawl. and restrict that type of development from here on out. We have room and time to build infrastructure that is inherently more economically stable and we can begin to create an atmosphere that is pleasant by reducing the necessity of the automobile.

It has nothing to do with long or short term. An investment is an investment. You need to invest maintenance be it freeways or mad transit. Bart is a good example of this. I don't even remember how many billions of dollars needed to just repair the system, but it's a massive amount. No different than the freeway except it only carriers people. Freeways don't have this issue. Freeways carry freight, delivery services, along with its commuters that use it to get to and from work.

How many billions of dollars do you think use interstates and freeways vs. rail dedicated for commuters(i.e. subways and light rail)?

The same argument can be made for the 100+ billion it will take to build the HSR in central California. Go ahead and give me a rough guess on how long you think it will take to pay that off and by the time it's paid how many millions or billions in repairs will it need?

How many billions of dollars did it take to complete the 3 mile or so expansion? Metro doesn't estimate it will pay off the multi billion dollar expansion of the purple line until like the 2050s which is why it needs federal grants to get it done before the original 2034 timeline.

The same can be said for water lines, sewer lines, and other basic infrastructure. You can make that argument of x amount of tax dollars per square foot but in one way or another every city service has to be subsidized and if it isn't through freeways it will be through social services because of the astronomical costs of building housing and the cost of real estate in urban areas vs suburbs.

People do pay for those things. They come in form of property taxes, sales taxes, vehicular registration and tagging, fuel taxes, energy taxes, local bond measures...

If the demand was there for people to want to live downtown, it would happen and the suburbs would fall. But that doesn't happen. The good thing about urban living is it's always there. In OKC's place, it's again becoming a viable alternative which is a great thing but the majority of people will continue to live in the suburbs and it will expand faster.

I think the street car is a fail because it runs along at grade. I know this is an unpopular opinion here but I think that money would have been better spent on saving for city wide light rail to get people who can't afford to own a car and/or live downtown an option to commute there.

To me, the street car is nothing more than a novelty item because it will be mainly comprised of a bunch of middle class hipsters using it for awhile and something to showcase investment. That's part of the reason I shake my head when I see people getting excited that streetcar renderings are included in like two or three developments pointing it out like that's actually a factor as to whether or not that development wouldn't have happened. I can turn around and make the same case about traffic lanes as that they included those because the development would not have happened without streets for cars. But of course that's a ridiculous notion to make because it's part of the infrastructure and the street car is a selling point for hotel patrons and residents. I could brain storm a million other things that would be as well. Doesn't mean every one of those would be something worth investing in.

At some point OKC needs to wake up and form a true comprehensive transit system and as per Hutch, that seems to be happening. I'm not saying the street car is bad investment per say because the reason I'm 100% against the one proposed in DTLA is that LA is already so congested and adding more forms of transit be it more, rideshares, dedicated bike lanes, mass transit that shares vehicle lanes is just a lack of planning.

Now OKC doesn't have that problem yet but it's row on the downtown streets couldn't support roads as wide as the ones in LA without major demolition. Seeing as the streetcar really won't make traffic worse since traffic problems in OKC are almost nonexistent, I really have no argument against other than the fact I just don't like it.

It's not that I don't like street cars I think they're great in tourist areas like beach or lodging towns. That's just a personal preference. A fully functional rail system should have its own route dedicated and separated from other forms of transit to maximize headways and get the people on it from point to point b since they already have to deal with negatives such as having to find transit to a station, wait for it, put with other people, etc... Yes there are benefits to it such as not having to worry about traffic, but that's moot if has grade crossings. Once again, the street car in OKC won't suffer from this, but beating a dead horse, I think the 130 million could have gone towards improving the existing bus routes, adding BRT along Classen and NWE, and/or a regional light rail system which is much more important than a commuter to and from Norman and Edmond which are wealthy suburbs and will probably be primarily used by those who can afford a car but choose to ride the rail.

[Plutonic Panda]

One thing I want to add about OKC transit... I know we are off topic hopefully a moderator can move these posts sorry...

But I hope regional transit planners in OKC don't make the same mistake the ones in SoCal have made. There are many transit agencies in and around Los Angeles the main ones being Metro, Metrolink, Amtrak, Big Blue Bus(Santa Monica), OCTA, and of course San Diego has its own transit under SANDBAG or something. Only two of those work together and that Metro and Big Blue Bus. If you connect to OCTA(Orange County Transit Authority) or Metrolink you have to have individual cards or passes separate from each other. Metro monthly passes without discounts are $130. Than metrolink depending on the zone is $150 and it's a little paper card that can easily be ripped or lost.

It would be nice if one TAP(transit access pass) would work with all agencies including Amtrak. Correct me I'm wrong, but I believe in the Northeast you can get a monthly Amtrak pass.

I am without a car in LA right now so I have come to see both sides and how valuable transit can be. I rely on my bike and rail & bus. In Los Angeles it's a breeze as Metro basically covers the LA basin and the Valley and I get an Orange County pass free from Disney. I however spend $200 a month for a Metrolink pass additionally which is a sh!t ton of money for me right now.

I will start a thread detailing some cool things about being car free in LA that OKC should take note of and things it should learn from.

One thing is Embark should work to be the parent agency across the metro having its own busses go into the suburbs on certain routes and have what is called a TAP card where you can load set amount of money, monthly pass, one way trip, etc. this is a plastic reusable card valid for 10 years.

One thing I don't like about it is the fact it isn't connect to an account. Strictly uses some technology to tap to load. It's nice but having it tied to an account by option would be better or be able to use Apple Pay and load it like a credit card onto your Apple Wallet would be nice. This way if you didn't have a monthly pass and you weren't near a machine to load money onto your tap card, you could do it via an app or online.

OCTA also has an app where you can purchase a one way or round trip ticket that loads into your phone and simply push use to use it and it stays on for a set amount of time and you show the bus driver, he gives you thumbs up, and you're on your way.

Lots of opportunities and I hope OKC gets it right. I also hope the streetcar doesn't stay free for too long where people get used to that.

Either way whether you advocate for transit or freeways, I hope everyone submitted ideas through the GoBond idea tracker. Syngery creates more and I'm sure it helps the people planning this stuff become more motivated to do so when they know the people in the city are excited about it too.

[bchris02]

In terms of sprawl vs density, one of the hidden costs of sprawl is its designed to be disposable. The "nice" areas right now will be marginal 30 years from now, just like many of the more sought after neighborhoods in OKC 30 years ago (like the Putnam City school district area) are now experiencing some problems. The Moore neighborhood I lived in as a child was an upper-middle class neighborhood back in the 90s but if you go to that subdivision today, you can tell that it has declined some. If development remains focused on sprawl, this will be a never-ending cycle. OKC isn't the only city that's experiencing this. It's even worse in Charlotte since its growing and sprawling at a much faster rate.

The solution is simple. The city should have a policy stating that if a developer wants to build subdivisions north of a specific point (given OKC's current sprawl I would say Covell would be a good cutoff point for now), the developer has to pay for all the infrastructure to be run out there as well as road widening if it's needed. The city shouldn't pay for that because it's not a good long-term investment.

If a person wants to live out in the boonies, it's their right and their choice to do so, but they shouldn't expect city services if they are going to live out there.

[traxx]

True, bchris. I grew up in the Warwick neighborhood and went to PC North. The neighborhood is old but still somewhat clean but not really nice like it was in the '80s. Other neighborhoods in the area are worse. And I've heard that PCN is getting kinda ghetto now. People used to move into the area for that school as it was a good school.

[Rover]

In terms of sprawl vs density, one of the hidden costs of sprawl is its designed to be disposable. The "nice" areas right now will be marginal 30 years from now, just like many of the more sought after neighborhoods in OKC 30 years ago (like the Putnam City school district area) are now experiencing some problems. The Moore neighborhood I lived in as a child was an upper-middle class neighborhood back in the 90s but if you go to that subdivision today, you can tell that it has declined some. If development remains focused on sprawl, this will be a never-ending cycle. OKC isn't the only city that's experiencing this. It's even worse in Charlotte since its growing and sprawling at a much faster rate.

The solution is simple. The city should have a policy stating that if a developer wants to build subdivisions north of a specific point (given OKC's current sprawl I would say Covell would be a good cutoff point for now), the developer has to pay for all the infrastructure to be run out there as well as road widening if it's needed. The city shouldn't pay for that because it's not a good long-term investment.

If a person wants to live out in the boonies, it's their right and their choice to do so, but they shouldn't expect city services if they are going to live out there.

It isn't just the sprawl, but the quality of the structures built. In an attempt to make things as affordable as possible, we tend to only consider first costs and are pretty lax in our building requirements. Over time, inflation tends to make it look like value is retained as true value in a structure actually declines. On top of that, we tend to have pretty liberal lending laws/policies which let people buy the most they can afford, and then they have little left over for maintenance, landscaping, improvements, etc. Over time, poorly constructed structures not properly maintained will deteriorate. Just the fact.

[Plutonic Panda]

True, bchris. I grew up in the Warwick neighborhood and went to PC North. The neighborhood is old but still somewhat clean but not really nice like it was in the '80s. Other neighborhoods in the area are worse. And I've heard that PCN is getting kinda ghetto now. People used to move into the area for that school as it was a good school.

It has nothing to with being disposable which is not true or exclusive to sprawl. First off you define what type of sprawl you're even talking about because is such a vague term. If we're talking about suburban sprawl, I can pull tons of examples of dilapidated urban sprawl from all over the world. Sprawl has nothing to do with being urban or suburban.

As for the quality of structured built, you can build the best structure in the world and if you don't take care of it it will go in decline.

Suburban development is NOT designed to be disposable any more or less than urban development is. Cities change, areas get better and worse, and life goes on. Nothing stays the same forever.

[traxx]

It has nothing to with being disposable which is not true or exclusive to sprawl. First off you define what type of sprawl you're even talking about because is such a vague term. If we're talking about suburban sprawl, I can pull tons of examples of dilapidated urban sprawl from all over the world. Sprawl has nothing to do with being urban or suburban.

As for the quality of structured built, you can build the best structure in the world and if you don't take care of it it will go in decline.

Suburban development is NOT designed to be disposable any more or less than urban development is. Cities change, areas get better and worse, and life goes on. Nothing stays the same forever.

I think maybe you meant quote bchris here.

[Plutonic Panda]

I think maybe you meant quote bchris here.

i did my bad.

[warreng88]

Not sure exactly where to put this and since this is the most recent thread, I thought I would leave it here:

OKC rejects deannexing land to Mustang

By: Brian Brus The Journal Record April 11, 2017

OKLAHOMA CITY – A developer’s request for Oklahoma City to deannex land to Mustang had City Council members questioning their adherence to the city’s master plan.

“I’m not against deannexing areas,” Councilman James Greiner said. “But we have to decide whether or not it’s good for the city. … When you read the benefits and costs, it’s clear to me that this is not a good deal for Oklahoma City.”

Councilman Larry McAtee disagreed, saying that what’s good for a satellite community such as Mustang is good for Oklahoma City and the larger metro area.

That also was the belief espoused by the seven landowners of Crout Cos., who have been working with Walton
Management in developing the area on Mustang Road just north of the Canadian River with housing, shops, offices and recreational attractions. President Robert Crout said the large-lot, single-family residences would be built at a density requiring public water and sewer service, resources Oklahoma City does not provide in the area. Crout and attorney David Box have been lobbying for the change for two years and had finally negotiated enough changes in the plan to satisfy the Oklahoma City Planning Department.

But the issue died anyway after a 4-5 vote Tuesday. McAtee was joined in the minority by Mayor Mick Cornett, Mark Stonecipher and Todd Stone. It was one of Stone’s first actions as a new council member, succeeding Pete White.

If approved, the agenda item would have diminished the corporate limits of Oklahoma City by about 1,000 acres on the far southwest side. The action would have been followed by annexation by city leaders in Mustang.

Councilman Ed Shadid said the issue was one of the most important policy decisions ever, setting a precedent that would invite more developers to nibble at the edges of the city’s 620 square miles. At worst, it would push speculators to buy property and sit on it as they leveraged one city against the other.

City Hall and its elected officials spent years developing PlanOKC, he said, referring to a comprehensive blueprint intended to guide growth for 10 years at a time. Councilwoman Meg Salyer said she was concerned about circumventing that work.

City staff members reported that if the site developed as proposed, Oklahoma City would forgo property tax and future sales tax revenues. The estimated economic benefit to the city would be $70,700 per year in avoided maintenance and public safety service costs balanced by costs of $192,000 to $549,000 per year in unrealized revenue from property and sales tax.

Greiner said that facilitating the growth of that area ultimately will put more pressure on Oklahoma City to extend utilities and other infrastructure in the area, re-creating the scenario again.

McAtee noted the irony of his peers’ support of the next agenda item, a deannexation of 4 acres to Nichols Hills to serve as a public works and utilities yard. That property is already owned by the other municipality even though it is within Oklahoma City limits.

[KayneMo]

July 2016 city population estimates are out!
http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral...archAgain=true

1. Oklahoma City - 638,367
+58,368 since 2010 Census (+10.1%)
+7,749 since 2015

2. Tulsa - 403,090
+11,184 since 2010 (+2.9%)
-15 since 2015

3. Norman - 122,180
+11,255 since 2010 (+10.1%)
+1,996 since 2015

4. Broken Arrow - 107,403
+8,553 since 2010 (+8.7%)
+871 since 2015

5. Lawton - 94,653
-2,214 since 2010 (-2.3%)
-1,658 since 2015

6. Edmond - 91,191
+9,786 since 2010 (+12.0%)
+1,200 since 2015

7. Moore - 61,415
+6,334 since 2010 (+11.5%)
+1,024 since 2015

8. Midwest City - 57,305
+2,934 since 2010 (+5.4%)
+117 since 2015

9. Enid - 51,004
+1,625 since 2010 (+3.3%)
-600 since 2015

10. Stillwater - 49,504
+3,816 since 2010 (+8.4%)
+671 since 2015

[KayneMo]

My hometown of Durant - 17,583
+1,727 since 2010 (+10.9%)
+266 since July 2015

[TU 'cane]

I had a feeling Tulsa would be at a loss for the year, even if just 15 people.
Broken Arrow's growth even appears to have slowed down a great deal.

Glad to see OKC still chugging along.

Have they released the estimate for the entire state, yet?
Edit: yes, just had to follow your link.

Oklahoma's state population grew by about 16,000 to 3,923,561. That's the lowest level of growth in the last 7 years. And at that rate, the state won't be breaking 4,000,000 by the 2020 census.

[Pete]

^

I consider that good growth for OKC given the downturn in the oil patch.

We always get job chasers when prices spike and then many clear out afterwards.

[OkiePoke]

^

I consider that good growth for OKC given the downturn in the oil patch.

We always get job chasers when prices spike and then many clear out afterwards.

I wonder how many people moved from other cities to OKC during the downturn for jobs though.

[OKCRT]

I had a feeling Tulsa would be at a loss for the year, even if just 15 people.
Broken Arrow's growth even appears to have slowed down a great deal.

Glad to see OKC still chugging along.

Have they released the estimate for the entire state, yet?
Edit: yes, just had to follow your link.

Oklahoma's state population grew by about 16,000 to 3,923,561. That's the lowest level of growth in the last 7 years. And at that rate, the state won't be breaking 4,000,000 by the 2020 census.

All it will take is a spike in Oil/Gas and the numbers will grow. Who knows when that is going to happen. It's not a matter of if,but when.

[Rover]

So, OKC area About +90,000 and Tulsa area about +20,000?

[KayneMo]

So, OKC area About +90,000 and Tulsa area about +20,000?

2010-2016
OKC Metro +120,224 (+9.6%)
Tulsa Metro +49,723 (+5.3%)

[Bunty]

Stillwater should be able to go over 50,000 by 2020, if OSU doesn't have declines in enrollment. Stillwater probably can't attract enough industry to make up for losses there. Enid better stop its losses to stay above the magic 50,000 mark.

[traxx]

I'm not saying the numbers are wrong (I think they're probably right) but Edmond feels like it has more than 91K people in it. That's a town that was never meant to have that many people or that much traffic in it. I don't think there's a solution to the traffic there. More roads, wider roads, more traffic lights are not the answer. It's just a matter of having a population that's too large for an infrastructure that was never envisioned serving that much traffic.

[Pete]

^

A lot of what most people consider Edmond is actually far NW OKC.

In Edmond schools but outside the Edmond city limits.

[KayneMo]

^ Based on census tract data from 2010, I added up the population of the area bounded by Waterloo on the north, May on the west, roughly Kilpatrick/Memorial on the south, and I-35 on the east and it comes up to 115,568. And that is data from 7 years ago so I'm sure it's quiet a bit more now.

[KayneMo]

Add in the two large census tracts to the west (bounded by Waterloo, County Line, Kilpatrick, & May) and north OKC/Edmond comes to 125,102 residents in 2010.

[jerrywall]

I'm not saying the numbers are wrong (I think they're probably right) but Edmond feels like it has more than 91K people in it. That's a town that was never meant to have that many people or that much traffic in it. I don't think there's a solution to the traffic there. More roads, wider roads, more traffic lights are not the answer. It's just a matter of having a population that's too large for an infrastructure that was never envisioned serving that much traffic.

Don't forget that UCO has over 17k students. Many of those are not Edmond residents, and are either commuters or temporary residents that might not be included in these counts. Also people that may commute into Edmond for work.

[SOONER8693]

Don't forget that UCO has over 17k students. Many of those are not Edmond residents, and are either commuters or temporary residents that might not be included in these counts. Also people that may commute into Edmond for work.

College students are counted in the population of a town/city. Since they basically reside there for approx 9 months of a year, they count. I learned that in a Population Statistics class I had in college. Before that, I assumed they did not count, but, they do.