Population Growth for OKC

[PhiAlpha]

Absolutely correct, Portland has more short and stubby office towers compared to OKC.

And the Trailblazers are not as good as the Thunder.

Portland also has nearly a full 2.0% higher unemployment rate and around 70 fewer clear/sunny days per year than OKC. #stillcantbeatcharlotte


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bchris02]

Absolutely correct, Portland has more short and stubby office towers compared to OKC.

And the Trailblazers are not as good as the Thunder.

Portland has a less impressive skyline but at steet level it's one of the most impressive cities in the US. OKC doesn't have anywhere that can really compare. The diversity and cultural vibrancy in Portland is unmatched anywhere in the South except for maybe in Austin. They may be a lot rainier but their weather is overall milder in both summer and winter and they don't have a severe weather season. Their natural terrain is beautiful as well. Their basketball team isn't as good as the Thunder but you never hear of people moving to Portland for the sports. Portland is liberal, sometimes mindnumbingly and oppressively so. OKC is just as conservative as Portland is liberal. Portland and OKC are in many ways complete opposites.

And in Oregon, Portland does benefit from being the only real city in the state. Tulsa hurts OKC in some ways by siphoning off population and amenities that would otherwise go to OKC.

[Architect2010]

Portland has a less impressive skyline but at steet level it's one of the most impressive cities in the US. OKC doesn't have anywhere that can really compare. The diversity and cultural vibrancy in Portland is unmatched anywhere in the South except for maybe in Austin. They may be a lot rainier but their weather is overall milder in both summer and winter and they don't have a severe weather season. Their natural terrain is beautiful as well. Their basketball team isn't as good as the Thunder but you never hear of people moving to Portland for the sports. Portland and OKC are in many ways complete opposites.

And in Oregon, Portland does benefit from being the only real city in the state. Tulsa hurts OKC in some ways by siphoning off population and amenities that would otherwise go to OKC.

Preachin' to the choir.

[adaniel]

Back to OKC please...

Assuming that the city grew at least as fast as the metro (OKC has actually exceeded the growth rate of the metro the past few estimates) @ growth of 1.65% that should put us around 609K.

[PhiAlpha]

Portland has a less impressive skyline but at steet level it's one of the most impressive cities in the US. OKC doesn't have anywhere that can really compare. The diversity and cultural vibrancy in Portland is unmatched anywhere in the South except for maybe in Austin. They may be a lot rainier but their weather is overall milder in both summer and winter and they don't have a severe weather season. Their natural terrain is beautiful as well. Their basketball team isn't as good as the Thunder but you never hear of people moving to Portland for the sports. Portland and OKC are in many ways complete opposites.

And in Oregon, Portland does benefit from being the only real city in the state. Tulsa hurts OKC in some ways by siphoning off population and amenities that would otherwise go to OKC.

Again with so many points completely irrelevant in a thread titled "Population Growth for OKC" in which we compared the POPULATIONS on Portland and OKC. I didn't realize tornadoes and level of hipsterness factored into total population figures. You do realize we are just throwing out random facts for the sole purpose of making fun of you, right?

Here's to BChris, who will never miss an opportunity to slam OKC no matter the thread subject.

[SOONER8693]

I think Portland would be the perfect place for bchris02 to move to, AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

[Bellaboo]

Portland has a less impressive skyline but at steet level it's one of the most impressive cities in the US. OKC doesn't have anywhere that can really compare. The diversity and cultural vibrancy in Portland is unmatched anywhere in the South except for maybe in Austin. They may be a lot rainier but their weather is overall milder in both summer and winter and they don't have a severe weather season. Their natural terrain is beautiful as well. Their basketball team isn't as good as the Thunder but you never hear of people moving to Portland for the sports. Portland is liberal, sometimes mindnumbingly and oppressively so. OKC is just as conservative as Portland is liberal. Portland and OKC are in many ways complete opposites.

And in Oregon, Portland does benefit from being the only real city in the state. Tulsa hurts OKC in some ways by siphoning off population and amenities that would otherwise go to OKC.

And if you remember back in the early '80's, Mt St. Helens blew it's stack and covered Portland in severaL inches of ash. I was there in 1987 and it still had large mounds of grey ash piled up in parking lots where it had been cleared years earlier. As a side note, I bought a '66 Shelby Cobra from a man in Portland, he said his reason for selling was that it could only be driven 3 months out of the year. It is a beautiful place though.

[Mississippi Blues]

My guess is somewhere in the 610,000 range.

[Laramie]

I am also awaiting the revised projections. We are closing in on Memphis and Jacksonville

American FactFinder - Results *

We should take Memphis in the 2016 census estimates. We gaining 20,000 a year to their 1,000 in Metropolitan population.

The city population estimates for 2013 are supposed to be released in May. Well it is the 20th so it should be any time. Also, unless we had a serious downturn in our economy in the last year, we should surpass the 600,000 mark in 2013.

No results yet...

"Oklahoma City looks oh-so pretty... ...as I get my kicks on Route 66." --Nat King Cole.

[KayneMo]

We all know its ultimately metro area population that really matters. I would definitely not consider Portland, Oregon a peer city of OKC despite city populations being relatively close. Their metro population is almost double plus their is the boutique factor so there is nothing in OKC that can remotely compare to Portland.

I was simply comparing city proper populations between OKC and Portland, nothing more.

[bchris02]

I was simply comparing city proper populations between OKC and Portland, nothing more.

I know. I was wrong to start comparing OKC and Portland in this thread. My point was that metro population is the only number that really matters. OKC is larger than Atlanta if you go by city population alone yet few would argue with the fact that Atlanta is one of the most important cities in the US.

Memphis and Louisville are great comparisons because their city and metro population numbers are similar. Memphis has been relatively stagnant for years now. OKC should pass them up nicely.

[Laramie]

I know. I was wrong to start comparing OKC and Portland in this thread. My point was that metro population is the only number that really matters. OKC is larger than Atlanta if you go by city population alone yet few would argue with the fact that Atlanta is one of the most important cities in the US.

Memphis and Louisville are great comparisons because their city and metro population numbers are similar. Memphis has been relatively stagnant for years now. OKC should pass them up nicely.

Memphis and Louisville are great comparisons because of their similarities.

It's time for Oklahoma City to move beyond these cities (Memphis, Louisville). We have leadership ready to take us to the next level. Our city has experienced expansion at nearly ever level. MAPS III has the elements to kick-start us as we position ourselves for growth into the twenties--especially if we get the Convention Center/mega hotel and commuter rail on track. This is where we will realize the fruits of our labor.

"Oklahoma City looks oh-so pretty... ...as I get my kicks on Route 66." --Nat King Cole.

[Spartan]

Again with so many points completely irrelevant in a thread titled "Population Growth for OKC" in which we compared the POPULATIONS on Portland and OKC. I didn't realize tornadoes and level of hipsterness factored into total population figures. You do realize we are just throwing out random facts for the sole purpose of making fun of you, right?

Here's to BChris, who will never miss an opportunity to slam OKC no matter the thread subject.

Good post, but if you were me you'd have four or five idiots telling you to apologize for being snarky. Lol

[PhiAlpha]

Lol I wouldn't be one of them in this case


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Plutonic Panda]

Good post, but if you were me you'd have four or five idiots telling you to apologize for being snarky. Lol

Typical snarkyness(make that a word) from Spartan

[Prunepicker]

Typical snarkyness (make that a word) from Spartan

Nay, nay. PQ is responsible for the renewal of the word "snarky". Hey,
she's very smart, per her posts, and provides an eloquent denouncement
of stupidity.

Arguing with PQ is like saying water can't boil. Believe me, water can boil.

Don't be stupid.

[josh]

I don't understand how city populations can be compared for Portland and OKC.

The land size for the city of Portland is 133 square miles while the land size for the city of Oklahoma City is 607 square miles. That's a ridiculously unfair comparison.

[ljbab728]

I don't understand how city populations can be compared for Portland and OKC.

The land size for the city of Portland is 133 square miles while the land size for the city of Oklahoma City is 607 square miles. That's a ridiculously unfair comparison.

What does the land size have to do with population?

[DavidD_NorthOKC]

What does the land size have to do with population?

Population density and what it costs to provide the normal utilities and services expected in a modern city. The more people per given amount of land, the lower it costs to serve those people. It is a legitimate consideration and issue especially if people would like to keep taxes at a reasonable level.

So how does that apply to OKC's population growth? The pyramid scheme we have created and continue to perpetuate by the manner the city has spread out - just because it could without any thought given to what happens when all that infrastructure that serves a relatively small number of people for the investment required to maintain and eventually replace. Why don't we incentivize redeveloping areas that are now considered blighted or "going downhill" rather than facilitating building another subdivision in the next empty field outside the ones being built today? Do that until the population is high enough to justify another ring. This is the usual debate we see on the site, but it is one we should have. I don't know anyone ready to bulldoze existing suburbs but we can do better if we are smarter with future development.

[josh]

What does the land size have to do with population?

Because it's a much much wider net for OKC.

In a vacuum, the city vs. city population for OKC and Portland is very symmetric because of the large land area advantage for OKC and the small land area disadvantage for Portland.

600,000 in a 607 square mile area is not as impressive as 600,000 people in a 133 square mile area. The density difference is tremendous.

The same can be said for San Antonio and San Francisco. San Antonio has a city population of 1.4 million within 461 square miles. The city likes to brag about being the '7th" largest city in the US, which is factually correct but means very little when a city like San Francisco has 840,000 people within an area of 47 square miles. That's impressive. Imagine if San Francisco expanded its city boundaries by another 414 square miles. They'd be a top 3 or 4 city with regards to population. If San Antonio reduced their city boundaries by 414, it'd have a much smaller population, way outside the top 10. What exactly does that change other than meaningless bragging rights?

San Francisco will still be San Francisco and San Antonio will still be San Antonio.

City populations in this day and age are very arbitrary and mean very little. Metro and urban populations are much more tangible and valuable.

[josh]

Visual representation if 1 pixel equaled 1 square mile.

[PWitty]

I'm not going to argue the relative population densities of OKC and Portland, but in general just because a city has a larger area doesn't mean that its population is evenly distributed throughout that area. A city may have an area of 400 sq miles, but if 80% of the city's population is in the inner 200 sq miles then does the total area even matter in regards to relative comparisons?

[bchris02]

I'm not going to argue the relative population densities of OKC and Portland, but in general just because a city has a larger area doesn't mean that its population is evenly distributed throughout that area. A city may have an area of 400 sq miles, but if 80% of the city's population is in the inner 200 sq miles then does the total area even matter in regards to relative comparisons?

I agree. OKC's Wikipedia figure of 600 sq miles is misleading because a majority of that is undeveloped. I am not sure how many sq miles of OKC actually are developed but the numbers aren't as bad as they seem at first glance. OKC really has to be treated like a city/county consolidation when it comes to density. Louisville is in the same boat today.

[adaniel]

Because it's a much much wider net for OKC.

City populations in this day and age are very arbitrary and mean very little. Metro and urban populations are much more tangible and valuable.

While you make a good point I strongly disagree with this statement. City populations are very important and if you don't think so just remember how many places fought the Census in 2010 to dispute their official count. This is how we determine pretty basic things like how much representation or tax funding a city gets.

Yes we all know that Atlanta has more recognition and economic importance than Mesa Arizona even though Mesa is bigger. All the census is trying to do is count how many people are in a muncipality, nothing more.

[LakeEffect]

While you make a good point I strongly disagree with this statement. City populations are very important and if you don't think so just remember how many places fought the Census in 2010 to dispute their official count. This is how we determine pretty basic things like how much representation or tax funding a city gets.

Yes we all know that Atlanta has more recognition and economic importance than Mesa Arizona even though Mesa is bigger. All the census is trying to do is count how many people are in a muncipality, nothing more.

I get both sides of the argument. In terms of getting Federal (or State) funding, the population within a city's borders is extremely important. However, when talking about retail collection areas, transportation planning, etc., city borders don't matter, the region does.