Population Growth for OKC

[shartel_ave]

None of what exists in the core would exist without the substantial taxpayer investment of the suburban areas. The economic impact of a city is how it functions as a whole - metro. If you think the 20,000 people that live in a few square miles of downtown wholly support all of what is happening in the core, you are deeply mistaken. I say this for any city and someone who strongly supports sustainable urban growth.

I am 28 and live in a suburban area by the way. It’s what most people can afford.

that is not what I said at all. I'm saying the core is the center for culture and stuff to do and there are way way more than 20k people living in the core. I said nothing about the suburbs not having any impact at all obviously they do.

My entire point of OKC and almost all major cities is that the core is were the majority of culture, arts, food, entertainment, live music, festivals, etc are.

Just speaking for myself and the people I'm around. Me and my wife live in the city center and have no kids and we have friends that live in Norman and Yukon that have kids and it is cheaper to live there.

We rarely go to yukon or norman they usually come to OKC especially for concerts and going out to eat or first friday in paseo or second friday in the plaza or festival of the arts downtown, paseo arts festival, etc.

I said I get that not everyone can or wants to live in the urban core and that's fine I get it.

The suburbs exist because of the Urban centers not the other way around and the article and the linked pew research shows that.

[soonerguru]

Does anyone know how to edit the main listing on Google for OKC population? It is still showing a city population of 649,000, which it attributed to 2020 numbers.

This is what you see when you Google "Oklahoma City Population."

[BoulderSooner]

that is not what I said at all. I'm saying the core is the center for culture and stuff to do and there are way way more than 20k people living in the core. I said nothing about the suburbs not having any impact at all obviously they do.

My entire point of OKC and almost all major cities is that the core is were the majority of culture, arts, food, entertainment, live music, festivals, etc are.

Just speaking for myself and the people I'm around. Me and my wife live in the city center and have no kids and we have friends that live in Norman and Yukon that have kids and it is cheaper to live there.

We rarely go to yukon or norman they usually come to OKC especially for concerts and going out to eat or first friday in paseo or second friday in the plaza or festival of the arts downtown, paseo arts festival, etc.

I said I get that not everyone can or wants to live in the urban core and that's fine I get it.

The suburbs exist because of the Urban centers not the other way around and the article and the linked pew research shows that.

please define what you think of as the Core??

[BoulderSooner]

Suburbs are older people and lower wage people

this is not reality ..

[shartel_ave]

this is not reality ..

https://www.courthousenews.com/subur...0same%20period

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-co.../pew-urban.pdf

[BoulderSooner]

https://www.courthousenews.com/subur...0same%20period

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-co.../pew-urban.pdf

we are talking about OKC specifically ...

also are you saying that the cities of The Village and Nichols Hills are in the core of the City of Oklahoma City ? ?

[BoulderSooner]

we are talking about OKC specifically ...

also are you saying that the cities of The Village and Nichols Hills are in the core of the City of Oklahoma City ? ?

highest income zipcodes in OKC metro

73151
73025
73116
73007
73173
73165
73131

[shartel_ave]

we are talking about OKC specifically ...

also are you saying that the cities of The Village and Nichols Hills are in the core of the City of Oklahoma City ? ?

Nichols hills has less than 4k people and the village has 9,500. and they just happen to be in the core of the city like Alamo Heights in San Antonio and what does that matter?

Paseo and Central Park have more people than the village and nichols hills combined and they are smaller that isn't even including all the surrounding neighborhoods like edgemere, jefferson park, crown heights, putnam heights, asian district, military park and on and on and on.

[shartel_ave]

highest income zipcodes in OKC metro

73151
73025
73116
73007
73173
73165
73131

you listed some zip codes with super low populations excluding nichols hills and edmond

[BoulderSooner]

Nichols hills has less than 4k people and the village has 9,500. and they just happen to be in the core of the city like Alamo Heights in San Antonio and what does that matter?

Paseo and Central Park have more people than the village and nichols hills combined and they are smaller that isn't even including all the surrounding neighborhoods like edgemere, jefferson park, crown heights, putnam heights, asian district, military park and on and on and on.

neither are in the "core"

[PaddyShack]

neither are in the "core"

He mentioned LHP as his western border, which would include the Village and NH. But there is a ton of OKC proper residents west of LHP, so I am not sure where there is going...

[shartel_ave]

He mentioned LHP as his western border, which would include the Village and NH. But there is a ton of OKC proper residents west of LHP, so I am not sure where there is going...

there isn't a whole lot going on west of LHP/44 and up NW expressway past LHP/44 besides big box retail, chain restaurants, strip malls and housing developments

I work off of NW expressway near Meridian and I love the old strip malls up and down Portland/Meridian/MacArthur from 10th to NW Expressway it kind of reminds me of parts of LA

[dhpersonal]

None of what exists in the core would exist without the substantial taxpayer investment of the suburban areas. The economic impact of a city is how it functions as a whole - metro. If you think the 20,000 people that live in a few square miles of downtown wholly support all of what is happening in the core, you are deeply mistaken. I say this for any city and someone who strongly supports sustainable urban growth.

I am 28 and live in a suburban area by the way. It’s what most people can afford.

Suburbs are a drain on the city core. The single-family tract homes of bedroom communities cost more for the city than the denser multi-family homes found in city cores. The infrastructure costs required to reach suburbs are not cost-effective and will drain a city’s budget, lowering the quality of life for all its residents.

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/...ban-homeowners

[catch22]

Suburbs are a drain on the city core. The single-family tract homes of bedroom communities cost more for the city than the denser multi-family homes found in city cores. The infrastructure costs required to reach suburbs are not cost-effective and will drain a city’s budget, lowering the quality of life for all its residents.

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/...ban-homeowners

That’s a different argument and one which I don’t disagree with. I think my views on this site are pretty well known. But the tax dollars that are spent in the core, largely come from outside of the urban core. Vice versa, the tax dollars to support the suburban areas largely come from other suburban areas and unsustainable debt.

The core is not self-sufficient in generating its own infrastructure spending. That money comes from a much larger area and is funneled into a much small area. Of course, it didn’t used to be this way. When the core was filled with people and businesses it did subsidize the suburban growth.

[shartel_ave]

That’s a different argument and one which I don’t disagree with. I think my views on this site are pretty well known. But the tax dollars that are spent in the core, largely come from outside of the urban core. Vice versa, the tax dollars to support the suburban areas largely come from other suburban areas and unsustainable debt.

The core is not self-sufficient in generating its own infrastructure spending. That money comes from a much larger area and is funneled into a much small area. Of course, it didn’t used to be this way. When the core was filled with people and businesses it did subsidize the suburban growth.

it isn't different at all you just don't want to admit it

The costs associated with suburban low density is never really recouped by the taxes raised. Suburban areas depend on higher density areas

Suburbs are subsidized by the urban core

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI

[Snowman]

Suburbs are a drain on the city core. The single-family tract homes of bedroom communities cost more for the city than the denser multi-family homes found in city cores. The infrastructure costs required to reach suburbs are not cost-effective and will drain a city’s budget, lowering the quality of life for all its residents.

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/...ban-homeowners

While I have been following Strong Towns for years and would like to see more urban development options, some of what I have more recently been looking at on global trends may complicate the issue. Countries that went more on an urban model either rapidly like many Asian counties have or for a longer period like European countries both are generally in a range of worrying population decline and nothing indicating will improve anytime soon, where America is a rarity of developed countries with a pretty stable population. With country wide populations decline likely to be a bigger economic problem than our urban/suburban issues.

[catch22]

it isn't different at all you just don't want to admit it

The costs associated with suburban low density is never really recouped by the taxes raised. Suburban areas depend on higher density areas

Suburbs are subsidized by the urban core

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI

That is quite literally what I said. Unsustainable debt. But the suburbs still provide a huge amount of the tax revenue that go towards building the core. Do you think MAPS is only collected downtown? It all comes from the same pot and the suburban areas of the city contribute a huge portion of that money sitting in those coffers.

[dhpersonal]

MAPS was supported by suburbia as much as it was hampered by it because the city has to maintain a deeply expensive method of housing. City planners choosing suburbia as a large portion of the city could lead one to believe that suburbs are cost-effective, but I do not think the data supports that. Suburbs do not appear to return as much value as some may assume. It is far more cost-effective and a greater return on investment to focus on core city dense housing over long-distance suburban tract housing.

NotJustBikes made a series of videos in partnership with Strong Towns to discuss these issues. Here’s one that relates to the cost of suburbs, but I recommend watching the entire series: https://youtu.be/7Nw6qyyrTeI

[HOT ROD]

keep in mind that the "luther" turnpike exit ... is in Oklahoma city .. (yes that far north east)

so? is that exit so important to the OKC population? NO. The population of OKC is within a confined area significantly smaller than its city limits.

Seattle has a freeway exit on it's southern fringe as well but one would be FOOLISH to suggest that it is significant enough to warrant notice let alone argue its importance to Seattle's population vs. the core and inner city of Seattle exits; where THE CITY is. How is OKC somehow different? I've been to those fringe areas of OKC and they are just that - fringe, and could easily be removed without any loss of population or tax base (since there's also no businesses there). ...

And I suppose according to some on here we better start marketing the OKC Metropolitan area as the Edmond or Norman Metropolitan area since OKC's core is so lacking. [shrug] Better yet, let's market OKC metro as the "Oklahoma City Metropolitan Area that MUST include Tulsa Metro Area to be significant". There we go.

I personally have never visited OKC to go to any event in Edmond or Norman (other than OU football/softball) nor have I visited OKC to go to the luther exit or somewhere else in the fringe (shakes head), but I have visited OKC for the sole purpose to attend events in OKC's core downtown and inner city. I think most visitors/tourists to OKC are similar to me, but that's just a thought. The ONLY reason why I went to the fringe was because I'm from OKC and 'of course' know about the city limits. .... Some of you all must know something I dont.

[HOT ROD]

None of what exists in the core would exist without the substantial taxpayer investment of the suburban areas. The economic impact of a city is how it functions as a whole - metro. If you think the 20,000 people that live in a few square miles of downtown wholly support all of what is happening in the core, you are deeply mistaken. I say this for any city and someone who strongly supports sustainable urban growth.

I am 28 and live in a suburban area by the way. It’s what most people can afford.

totally disagree with you catch. You mean to tell me that none of the core of OKC would exist without the suburbs? So, by correlation you're saying that the suburbs were there first and that because of them the core of OKC was built. I can tell you by experience Denver was NOT build that way. I used to live there and the core was there LONG before Arvada, Aurora, Littleton were anything beyond rail or mail posts. I used to live in downtown Denver and LIttleton btw (Arapaho Rd). Denver's suburbs exist because of Denver and its core, ditto that for Seattle AND Oklahoma City, no different.

Now I would agree with you that cores THRIVE due to support from the suburbs. YES. But totally disagree with your first notion that cores would not exist without suburbs. That is purely post-WW2 which I believe OKC and most core major cities existed and thrived before that (see historical pics of downtown OKC pre-1950s).

[Rover]

This downtown vs suburb argument is lame. It’s like debating which is more important to your life….lungs or heart. Try living without either. A city must be looked at holistically.

[BoulderSooner]

so? is that exit so important to the OKC population? NO. The population of OKC is within a confined area significantly smaller than its city limits.

Seattle has a freeway exit on it's southern fringe as well but one would be FOOLISH to suggest that it is significant enough to warrant notice let alone argue its importance to Seattle's population vs. the core and inner city of Seattle exits; where THE CITY is. How is OKC somehow different? I've been to those fringe areas of OKC and they are just that - fringe, and could easily be removed without any loss of population or tax base (since there's also no businesses there). ...

And I suppose according to some on here we better start marketing the OKC Metropolitan area as the Edmond or Norman Metropolitan area since OKC's core is so lacking. [shrug] Better yet, let's market OKC metro as the "Oklahoma City Metropolitan Area that MUST include Tulsa Metro Area to be significant". There we go.

I personally have never visited OKC to go to any event in Edmond or Norman (other than OU football/softball) nor have I visited OKC to go to the luther exit or somewhere else in the fringe (shakes head), but I have visited OKC for the sole purpose to attend events in OKC's core downtown and inner city. I think most visitors/tourists to OKC are similar to me, but that's just a thought. The ONLY reason why I went to the fringe was because I'm from OKC and 'of course' know about the city limits. .... Some of you all must know something I dont.

it was in response to a comment about okc and tulsa getting filled in up and down the turnpike

and as far as the population in a smaller area .... not north and south ... OKC has almost full infill for 25 miles north - south

[catch22]

totally disagree with you catch. You mean to tell me that none of the core of OKC would exist without the suburbs? So, by correlation you're saying that the suburbs were there first and that because of them the core of OKC was built. I can tell you by experience Denver was NOT build that way. I used to live there and the core was there LONG before Arvada, Aurora, Littleton were anything beyond rail or mail posts. I used to live in downtown Denver and LIttleton btw (Arapaho Rd). Denver's suburbs exist because of Denver and its core, ditto that for Seattle AND Oklahoma City, no different.

Now I would agree with you that cores THRIVE due to support from the suburbs. YES. But totally disagree with your first notion that cores would not exist without suburbs. That is purely post-WW2 which I believe OKC and most core major cities existed and thrived before that (see historical pics of downtown OKC pre-1950s).

I swear this website has a reading comprehension problem. Did you not even read my post that said "Of course, it didn’t used to be this way. When the core was filled with people and businesses it did subsidize the suburban growth."

[shartel_ave]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVUe...ehUTVa&index=2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IsM...ehUTVa&index=3

[soonerguru]

While I have been following Strong Towns for years and would like to see more urban development options, some of what I have more recently been looking at on global trends may complicate the issue. Countries that went more on an urban model either rapidly like many Asian counties have or for a longer period like European countries both are generally in a range of worrying population decline and nothing indicating will improve anytime soon, where America is a rarity of developed countries with a pretty stable population. With country wide populations decline likely to be a bigger economic problem than our urban/suburban issues.

Actually, America is not growing. Without immigration, we would be seeing a population decline. We are holding steady but that's it.