The U.S. Census Bureau today released the latest population figures (as of July 1, 2007) for incorporated cities. (Figures for metropolitan areas were released several months ago.) Here are the numbers for Oklahoma City, Tulsa, and Norman.
The first figure is the new 2007 number, the second is the population in the census of 2000, and the third is the percent gain (or loss)

Oklahoma City 547,274 506,129 +8.1%
Tulsa 384,037 392,851 -2.3%
Norman 106,707 96,819 +10.3%

Redland - can you provide the metro numbers if you have them readily available?

__________________
Oklahoma City - The surprise your family has been looking for.

Wow, Tulsa lost more than two percent. That's bad.

__________________
...this shortest straw has been pulled for you

The latest (July,2007) metropolitan area populations are as follows. (2007 number first, census 2000 number second)

Oklahoma City 1,262,027 1,160,942
Tulsa 955,643 908,528

These are the CMSA (combined metropolitan statistical area) figures.

redland, do you have a link to where you're getting these numbers. The US Census Bureau's page isn't that fun to try and navigate.

Those CMSA numbers represent a 8.7% growth rate for OKC and 5.2% for Tulsa.

County Population Estimates-U.S. Census Bureau

Once there you can click "Estimates Data" at the top left of the page. Then you can choose data for cities, metro areas, counties, and states.

So, OKC is gaining both in city and cmsa population while Tulsa is declining in city but gaining in cmsa. Confirms what we feel here. Tulsa's outlying regions are sucking population away from the city. However, I live in the core of near downtown (Cherry Street area) and we are seeing big movements of suburbans into our neighborhoods. This ying-yang is stressing the city.

Tulsa is in a pickle. It is sprawling north and south and its inner-city street infrastructure can not allow for much growth. Odd that the 'burbs in Tulsa grew that much but the city itself lost population.

Those numbers are somewhat deceiving. They do not reflect recent trends--e.g., Tulsa had five years of population loss but is now recovering. Try the numbers just for the last year of growth (from 2006-2007):

Oklahoma City 539,916 547,274 1.4%
Norman 105,230 106,707 1.4%
Tulsa 382,618 384,037 0.4%
This can basically be explained by lack of room for traditional new housing. Oklahoma City has room to sprawl within its city limits; Tulsa does not.

The Metropolitan Statistical Area numbers (which take into account suburban population growth as well) confirm this:
2006 2007
Oklahoma City 1,175,937 1,192,989 1.5%
Tulsa 893,053 905,755 1.4%

Rumors of Tulsa's demise are greatly exaggerated.

The census stuff is always something of a mystery to me.

For example, if you look at the 2nd table at this website, Annual Estimates of the Population of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas , it indeed does show the Oklahoma City - Shawnee Combined Statistical Area at 1,262,027.

But, when you go to the "Counties" area here, Annual Estimates of the Population for Counties: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2007 , open the spreadsheet, one finds that the following counties in the estimate for what I presume is the Okc-Shawnee MSA are ...

Canadian........103,559
Cleveland........236,452
Grady..............50,615
Lincoln.............32,272
Logan..............36,435
Oklahoma........701,807
Pottawatomie....69,038
Total..........1,230,178

In other words, I don't understand. The MSA number greater than the sum of the county totals. Will someone explain, please?

__________________
Doug
http://www.dougloudenback.com/downtownOKC.htm
http://www.dougloudenback.com/oklahomacity.htm
http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/

yes, tulsa is definitely not in a demise, just drive thru the city and see for yourself. i don't care what the numbers say.

The CSMA figures ALSO INCLUDE suburban areas; so I do not see your point. And whether you compare today's figures to 2006 or to 2000, Oklahoma City's growth is greater than Tulsa's, both city limits and metro area.

And "sprawl" has nothing to do with it. CMSA figures are based on counties, and that "sprawl" area would be included, whether in city limits or not. As one example, ALL of Creek county is included in Tulsa's metro population, and if the city of Tulsa were to annex all of Creek County, it would not affect the metro population one bit. And again, if Oklahoma City were to de-annex uninhabited areas, it would not affect the metro population (or the city population either for that matter, since we're talking about areas where virtually nobody lives.)

Look, Tulsa is a fine and a beautiful city. But this post is about numbers. And no matter how you slice it, Oklahoma City continues to win this particular race.

How old are you? Put down the flamethrower. There's no race here, but if you want to invent one, go right ahead.

My point was just to correct the misperception that Tulsa is losing population at the present. It did from 2000-2005 for economic reasons we're all aware of. But now it's not. I also was suggesting that Oklahoma City has more room to grow within its city limits than Tulsa does, hence the disparity in city population growth but equivalent MSA growth.

It should be noted -- no matter how you slice it -- OKC is not only growing at a faster rate, but on a bigger base.

In terms for the CSMA's, OKC has gained well more than twice as many people as Tulsa since 2000.

And while Oklahoma City has the room in its rural areas to build housing, that doesn't explain why OKC is growing faster and by more. More population doesn't = more extreme outlying housing. I bet a lot of those numbers are inner-city growth. Just because Tulsa is restricted with land area doesn't mean it can't grow much in population. Thats bull. I mean theres a point where it would be hard to grow by much, but Tulsa isn't even close to that yet.

I already knew that Tulsa has made up some of its loss. I'm always checking in on this stuff. :] Good for Tulsa. Hopefully they can fully rebound and get back to where they were.

The CMSA populaltion is indeed the sum of the counties. You seem to have omitted McLain County whose population is about 32,000.

I would makea killing if I had t-shirts that said Team Tulsa and the other saying Team OKC

that's because OKC has more square miles of city limits. tulsa has plenty of room to grow, and thet are growing.

you would sell more team OKC shirts

That's so. It's amazing that Purcell is part of the metro.

__________________
Doug
http://www.dougloudenback.com/downtownOKC.htm
http://www.dougloudenback.com/oklahomacity.htm
http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/

Perhaps more interesting are the population estimates which are partitioned by the type of growth. For instance, this table shows that domestic growth from 2000-07 in the OKC MSA was 26,756 while the Tulsa MSA saw a net domestic decline of 616 over the same period. Tulsa's population growth, according to the Census estimate, is exclusively a result of natural births and international migration. Contrast this to OKC, which has domestic growth outpacing international growth.

http://www.census.gov/population/est...07-alldata.csv

Thats interesting Semisimple, but the link you gave was kind of garbled. Here's 2 website links that confirm what you are saying

Tulsa, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area (CBSA) Population and Components of Change

Oklahoma City, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area (CBSA) Population and Components of Change

For what is worth, Tulsa saw nearly as many people move into its MSA vs. OKC (+5,272 vs, +5,400) in 2007, but it still has a ways to go. I heard that Tulsa will top 1 million in 2012. That will be a hard goal to reach even if growth stays as high as it is up there.

Any of you wizzkidz on here able to determine what the populations of OKC and Tulsa will be, assuming a constant rate of growth, in 2015, 2020 and 2025. I know it's impossible to tell for sure but it is fun to play around.

Perhaps a link already exists somewhere here on okctalk that could take me to a source?

Me (like most of you) = nerd

More amazing that it's not a long-distance call. (More amazing yet that we still have such anachronisms as "long-distance" calls. My cell phone doesn't care; why should my landline? Answer: $.)