Oklahoma City, In the Press

[PhiAlpha]

Despite the fact it is obvious that OKC is bigger and growing faster, It is apparent Tulsa’s just can’t accept it. All these “oh yeah, if you …… then Tulsa is better” arguments using arbitrary limits and hypotheticals is silly. We see a lot of excuses here.

Ok has two good cities we should be proud of. Let’s accept one is larger than the other and has been growing faster. It isn’t a referendum on if one is cooler than the other. Right now, it is just how things are going for a lot of reasons.

I'm not really sure why you seem to have a constant axe to grind against Tulsa but there's nothing wrong with people from there taking issue with posters here saying things like:

"And yet in 2025 OKC gained 7,589 new residents while Tulsa added a whopping 146

You and everyone here (I'm assuming), but you especially, know that it's disingenuous to use the city population numbers to compare growth between the two cities and act like OKC legitimately grew 51 times more than Tulsa did last year. OKC makes up nearly 10% of the total MSA area and Tulsa makes up just over 3% of the Tulsa MSA. I've lived in both cities for multiple years at a time recently so maybe I'm one of few here is actually capable of being objective.

If you aren't using the MSA statistics, you don't care about reality and what actually matters when discussing the growth of a city. It's true that OKC is the larger city and is growing faster, but it's also true that the city population numbers don't tell anywhere close to the whole story. Percentage change wise, they aren't that far off (especially the 2022-2023 estimates). The MSA statistics:

OKC MSA
2020: 1,425,695
2023: 1,477,926
Diff: 52,231
%: 3.66%

2022: 1,459,957
Diff: 17,969
%: 1.23%

Tulsa MSA
2020: 1,015,331
2023: 1,044,757
Diff: 29,426
%: 2.90%

2022: 1,034,048
Diff: 10,709
%: 1.04%

[gopokes88]

Tulsa is a fine town. (I mine that in that "fine dining" way, not the "It's fine" way.)

[PhiAlpha]

Tulsa is a fine town. (I mine that in that "fine dining" way, not the "It's fine" way.)

Well Oklahoma was just "OK" by its own admission/state slogan for years so hell, it's probably a complement either way lol.

[Bowser214]

Regarding getting the possibility of getting Softball Olympics isn't there more proposed development in that area?

[Bellaboo]

Regarding getting the possibility of getting Softball Olympics isn't there more proposed development in that area?

Saw on the news the other day the the 45th infantry museum is building a larger better facility over near the Railway Museum.

[Bellaboo]

Regarding getting the possibility of getting Softball Olympics isn't there more proposed development in that area?

Saw on the news the other day the 45th infantry museum is building a larger better facility over near the Railway Museum.

[HOT ROD]

I'm not really sure why you seem to have a constant axe to grind against Tulsa but there's nothing wrong with people from there taking issue with posters here saying things like:

You and everyone here (I'm assuming), but you especially, know that it's disingenuous to use the city population numbers to compare growth between the two cities and act like OKC legitimately grew 51 times more than Tulsa did last year. OKC makes up nearly 10% of the total MSA area and Tulsa makes up just over 3% of the Tulsa MSA. I've lived in both cities for multiple years at a time recently so maybe I'm one of few here is actually capable of being objective.

If you aren't using the MSA statistics, you don't care about reality and what actually matters when discussing the growth of a city. It's true that OKC is the larger city and is growing faster, but it's also true that the city population numbers don't tell anywhere close to the whole story. Percentage change wise, they aren't that far off (especially the 2022-2023 estimates). The MSA statistics:

OKC MSA
2020: 1,425,695
2023: 1,477,926
Diff: 52,231
%: 3.66%

2022: 1,459,957
Diff: 17,969
%: 1.23%

Tulsa MSA
2020: 1,015,331
2023: 1,044,757
Diff: 29,426
%: 2.90%

2022: 1,034,048
Diff: 10,709
%: 1.04%

but OKC isn't growing in it's rural areas in raw numbers like Tulsan's always try to say. OKC's growth is in the core and established areas NW, W, and SW. OKC has more opportunity in those areas but its not expanding in rural NE, SE. OKC does make up half of the OKC metro pop, but one should not discount the municipal pop as it is what the census uses to measure cities and make appropriations. OKC is significantly bigger than Tulsa in that regard *almost double, even if Tulsa took the same area.

We could argue the same about metro area, Tulsa's metro land area is larger than OKC's, hence why Tulsa is now able to get to 1 million, while census takes away Shawnee from OKC metro even though it is literally a few miles away from OKC limits and is connected to the city. ...

Rover is correct, Tulsan's should accept that OKC is bigger, always has been. That's ok you know, it benefits Tulsa to have a successful OKC competing against other state's largest cities. ...

[PhiAlpha]

but OKC isn't growing in it's rural areas in raw numbers like Tulsan's always try to say. OKC's growth is in the core and established areas NW, W, and SW. OKC has more opportunity in those areas but its not expanding in rural NE, SE. OKC does make up half of the OKC metro pop, but one should not discount the municipal pop as it is what the census uses to measure cities and make appropriations. OKC is significantly bigger than Tulsa in that regard *almost double, even if Tulsa took the same area.

We could argue the same about metro area, Tulsa's metro land area is larger than OKC's, hence why Tulsa is now able to get to 1 million, while census takes away Shawnee from OKC metro even though it is literally a few miles away from OKC limits and is connected to the city. ...

Rover is correct, Tulsan's should accept that OKC is bigger, always has been. That's ok you know, it benefits Tulsa to have a successful OKC competing against other state's largest cities. ...

Based on common sense and just driving around both metros…you have no clue what you’re talking about but also from an article about Oklahoma’s population growth since 2020:

Oklahoma City’s core county, Oklahoma County, lost more residents to other parts of the state (over 7,000) than it gained from other states since 2020 (Map 1, Panel B). Canadian County—the westernmost county in the OKC metro—grew the most during the pandemic by far, adding more than 11,000 residents on net from inside and outside the state, while McClain County on the southern end of the metro netted nearly 3,900 new residents.

Counties bordering the core of Oklahoma City and Tulsa added the most residents with the rise of working from home,

https://www.kansascityfed.org/oklaho...w%20residents.

OKC’s metro land area at 6,359 square miles is also larger then Tulsa’s at 6,269 square miles. And as far as Shawnee goes, you could say the same about Bartlesville in Tulsa. The only reason it’s anywhere near okc’s city limits is because of how massive OKC is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okla...ropolitan_area

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuls...ee%20counties.

Do you just make things up then string a bunch of rambling nonsense together about them?

[HOT ROD]

ha, wikipedia is your source? Most if not all the content/mods there are from Tulsa; they used OKC CSA area in that number you listed.

Here is a better, more accurate account: https://censusreporter.org/profiles/31000US36420-oklahoma-city-ok-metro-area/

Let me spell it out for you so you dont even need to lift a finger:


Oklahoma City, OK Metro Area

Core Based Statistical Area in: Oklahoma City-Shawnee, OK CSA, United States
1,459,380Population
5,511.7 square miles 264.8 people per square mile
Census data:ACS 2022 1-year unless noted


Tulsa, OK Metro Area

Core Based Statistical Area in: Tulsa-Muskogee-Bartlesville, OK CSA, United States
1,033,157Population
6,270.2 square miles164.8 people per square mile
Census data:ACS 2022 1-year unless noted


Now, let's check out CSAs, since Wiki used OKC's but not Tulsa's:

Oklahoma City-Shawnee, OK CSA

Combined Statistical Area in: United States
1,532,913Population
6,299.5 square miles 243.3 people per square mile
Census data:ACS 2022 1-year unless noted


Tulsa-Muskogee-Bartlesville, OK CSA

Combined Statistical Area in: United States
1,152,753Population
7,496.4 square miles, 153.8 people per square mile
Census data:ACS 2022 1-year unless noted


Care to take back YOUR ridiculous argument about 'common sense' now? Last I checked, 5517 was less than 6270, from US CENSUS DATA.

Even if comparing CSA, OKC is still significantly smaller in area. You can see the relative densities, OKC is more dense whether it's either MSA or CSA, but I specifically was arguing MSA - Metro Area. OKC CSA is basically the same area as Tulsa's MSA, but far more people.

We can agree that OKC's City Limit is massively larger than Tulsa's, but to sit and rant about if Tulsa were as large as OKC's area would be bigger population is beyond reality.

Mike Drop!

[PhiAlpha]

ha, wikipedia is your source? Most if not all the content/mods there are from Tulsa; they used OKC CSA area in that number you listed.

Here is a better, more accurate account: https://censusreporter.org/profiles/31000US36420-oklahoma-city-ok-metro-area/

Let me spell it out for you so you dont even need to lift a finger:


Oklahoma City, OK Metro Area

Core Based Statistical Area in: Oklahoma City-Shawnee, OK CSA, United States
1,459,380Population
5,511.7 square miles 264.8 people per square mile
Census data:ACS 2022 1-year unless noted


Tulsa, OK Metro Area

Core Based Statistical Area in: Tulsa-Muskogee-Bartlesville, OK CSA, United States
1,033,157Population
6,270.2 square miles164.8 people per square mile
Census data:ACS 2022 1-year unless noted


Now, let's check out CSAs, since Wiki used OKC's but not Tulsa's:

Oklahoma City-Shawnee, OK CSA

Combined Statistical Area in: United States
1,532,913Population
6,299.5 square miles 243.3 people per square mile
Census data:ACS 2022 1-year unless noted


Tulsa-Muskogee-Bartlesville, OK CSA

Combined Statistical Area in: United States
1,152,753Population
7,496.4 square miles, 153.8 people per square mile
Census data:ACS 2022 1-year unless noted


Care to take back YOUR ridiculous argument about 'common sense' now? Last I checked, 5517 was less than 6270, from US CENSUS DATA.

Even if comparing CSA, OKC is still significantly smaller in area. You can see the relative densities, OKC is more dense whether it's either MSA or CSA, but I specifically was arguing MSA - Metro Area. OKC CSA is basically the same area as Tulsa's MSA, but far more people.

We can agree that OKC's City Limit is massively larger than Tulsa's, but to sit and rant about if Tulsa were as large as OKC's area would be bigger population is beyond reality.

Mike Drop!

My common sense argument was very clearly in regard to your uncited comment about all of OKC’s growth being in established areas and not the crap ton of rural space being developed here, which you completely ignored ya jack wagon. I’m not sure if you had a stroke or what but you’ve turned into one of the most ridiculous posters here over the last year or two. Congrats on refuting the secondary point I made in my post though!

Your last line just stupid. No one has said Tulsa would be have the same population as OKC if it were bigger and the only one here “ranting” about anything is you, per usual

Also you should apologize to Mike for dropping him, that wasn’t very nice.

[BG918]

Osage County skews the Tulsa MSA/CSA. It’s a huge mostly rural county with the only the populated portion in its far southwest corner, which is Tulsa. Take away Osage County and the numbers are very different.

[HOT ROD]

OKC's city limits skew it as well, half of it is mostly rural watershed.

My point is you can make the same argument, Tulsa MSA/CSA is more rural or OKC city is more rural. Both are valid, but you can't swap only one like saying Tulsa would be bigger than OKC if it had the same city limit size. OKC is more than 700,000, and most of it is NOT in the rural area.

We'd love to take away rural OKC and Lincoln County (and the southern half of Grady County) too; would not make a dent in populatoion but would increase density even more.

[HOT ROD]

My common sense argument was very clearly in regard to your uncited comment about all of OKC’s growth being in established areas and not the crap ton of rural space being developed here, which you completely ignored ya jack wagon. I’m not sure if you had a stroke or what but you’ve turned into one of the most ridiculous posters here over the last year or two. Congrats on refuting the secondary point I made in my post though!

Your last line just stupid. No one has said Tulsa would be have the same population as OKC if it were bigger and the only one here “ranting” about anything is you, per usual

Also you should apologize to Mike for dropping him, that wasn’t very nice.

If you want personal attacks we can go that route. YOU were saying Tulsa would be bigger if it had the same city limit size. And you constantly rant on and on when someone tries to make a point, then you result to personal attacks. Small man syndrome?

[PhiAlpha]

If you want personal attacks we can go that route. YOU were saying Tulsa would be bigger if it had the same city limit size. And you constantly rant on and on when someone tries to make a point, then you result to personal attacks. Small man syndrome?

Find and quote the post in which I said Tulsa would be bigger than OKC if its city limits were larger.

[Bunty]

Well Oklahoma was just "OK" by its own admission/state slogan for years so hell, it's probably a complement either way lol.

Too bad how it seems in some ways, especially outside of Oklahoma City and Tulsa, things have gotten worse in Oklahoma since "Oklahoma is OK" was taken off of license plates.

[Rover]

Remember OKC city limits is 621 sq mi while Tulsa is only 186 sq mi. Expand Tulsa’s city limits to that size and I bet it’s close if not higher.

So we are going to start this circle argument of changing boundaries and suppositions are we?. In general, OKC area is growing bigger and faster than Tulsa. Just accept it. Why does it irk some people so much?

[PhiAlpha]

So we are going to start this circle argument of changing boundaries and suppositions are we?. In general, OKC area is growing bigger and faster than Tulsa. Just accept it. Why does it irk some people so much?

1) I wasn't the one who said this, as HOT ROD rambled on about.

2) It was in regard to population growth rate (not total population) being similar if Tulsa's city limits encompassed a larger area and in response to someone essentially saying that OKC grew 51 times faster than Tulsa between 2022-2023 which is a useless statistic if not stated in terms of the entire MSA.

3) I already proved that they aren't that far off in terms of estimated MSA population growth since 2020 but especially in estimated growth over the last year that was measured (2022-2023) which was the year used in the city comparison that BG918 responded to. OKC's MSA is growing faster than Tulsa, but not 51 times faster.

4) You know that saying the bolded part isn't what irks people so much.

BG918 could've phrased it better but he wasn't wrong in saying that they are closer in terms of population growth if a larger area was taken into account. That said, a better argument is that the metropolitan statistics are a better guide to an area's population growth than individual city statistics.

[BG918]

That said, a better argument is that the metropolitan statistics are a better guide to an area's population growth than individual city statistics.

Exactly, especially in Tulsa where the suburbs are over 60% of the metro population. Like I said a better comparison of growth between the two metros are OKC city limits (621 sq mi) to Tulsa County (587 sq mi) as both include the urban core and car-oriented suburban areas along with surrounding rural countryside. And face it while there is infill happening in both cities, with OKC leading Tulsa in that area, most new development and growth is greenfield sprawl.

[Rover]

1) I wasn't the one who said this, as HOT ROD rambled on about.

2) It was in regard to population growth rate (not total population) being similar if Tulsa's city limits encompassed a larger area and in response to someone essentially saying that OKC grew 51 times faster than Tulsa between 2022-2023 which is a useless statistic if not stated in terms of the entire MSA.

3) I already proved that they aren't that far off in terms of estimated MSA population growth since 2020 but especially in estimated growth over the last year that was measured (2022-2023) which was the year used in the city comparison that BG918 responded to. OKC's MSA is growing faster than Tulsa, but not 51 times faster.

4) You know that saying the bolded part isn't what irks people so much.

BG918 could've phrased it better but he wasn't wrong in saying that they are closer in terms of population growth if a larger area was taken into account. That said, a better argument is that the metropolitan statistics are a better guide to an area's population growth than individual city statistics.

I think if we divide the state along I-35 and give the Tulsa mega statistical area the population of the east side then Tulsa will show as faster growing and bigger than OKC. Tulsa wins.

[mugofbeer]

Why not use l-40? ��

[PhiAlpha]

I think if we divide the state along I-35 and give the Tulsa mega statistical area the population of the east side then Tulsa will show as faster growing and bigger than OKC. Tulsa wins.

Or use the well defined metropolitan area boundaries that the census uses to evaluate the population of large areas with relatively high population density.

Actually instead, let’s act like it’s more important than anything else that OKC has a higher population than cities like Boston, Baltimore, Atlanta, Tampa, Miami, Minneapolis, Detroit and Washington DC and that no one cares that the metro population of each dwarfs ours. Also probably isn’t relevant that OKC covers nearly 5 times more land area than the closest on the list (Detroit) and over 12 times that of the smallest (Boston). How on earth do we only have one professional sports franchise?!?

The population of Dallas shrunk between 2020-2023. Guess it doesn’t matter that DFW grew at almost twice the rate that the OKC Metro did during the same time frame.

Again. Arguing just to argue.

[Rover]

Or use the well defined metropolitan area boundaries that the census uses to evaluate the population of large areas with relatively high population density.

Actually instead, let’s act like it’s more important than anything else that OKC has a higher population than cities like Boston, Baltimore, Atlanta, Tampa, Miami, Minneapolis, Detroit and Washington DC and that no one cares that the metro population of each dwarfs ours. Also probably isn’t relevant that OKC covers nearly 5 times more land area than the closest on the list (Detroit) and over 12 times that of the smallest (Boston). How on earth do we only have one professional sports franchise?!?

The population of Dallas shrunk between 2020-2023. Guess it doesn’t matter that DFW grew at almost twice the rate that the OKC Metro did during the same time frame.

Again. Arguing just to argue.

Diversion is intellectually dishonest. This petty debate about OKC and Tulsa just goes round and round making it all tedious and disingenuous.

[Rover]

Or use the well defined metropolitan area boundaries that the census uses to evaluate the population of large areas with relatively high population density.

Actually instead, let’s act like it’s more important than anything else that OKC has a higher population than cities like Boston, Baltimore, Atlanta, Tampa, Miami, Minneapolis, Detroit and Washington DC and that no one cares that the metro population of each dwarfs ours. Also probably isn’t relevant that OKC covers nearly 5 times more land area than the closest on the list (Detroit) and over 12 times that of the smallest (Boston). How on earth do we only have one professional sports franchise?!?

The population of Dallas shrunk between 2020-2023. Guess it doesn’t matter that DFW grew at almost twice the rate that the OKC Metro did during the same time frame.

Again. Arguing just to argue.

Diversion is intellectually dishonest. This petty debate about OKC and Tulsa just goes round and round making it all tedious and disingenuous. So, good luck on informing or resolving it.

[PhiAlpha]

Diversion is intellectually dishonest. This petty debate about OKC and Tulsa just goes round and round making it all tedious and disingenuous.

Who’s being dishonest? How is using comparable scenarios diverting from anything? Dismissing valid points is intellectually dishonest.

I suggested using the boundaries that the Census Bureau, the group that tracks population for the United States government, uses to track metro population growth and then provided multiple comparisons of OKC/OKC MSA to multiple metro areas other than Tulsa that give a broader context as to why basing population growth arguments on city population alone is flawed.

Your only contribution to the conversation has been restating posts you’ve already responded to weeks ago and diverting from the conversation by disregarding widely accepted methods of tracking population growth by saying “screw it, let’s just draw a line at I-35.” The only disingenuous person here is you (and possibly HOT ROD though based on his posts over the last year or so, I fear there may be something deeper going on there).

Once again, arguing just to argue and failing to make a single relevant point.

[soonerguru]

More great advertising for OKC.