Yes, I realize that this is a completely asinine thread. There can be no resolution to the debate because all criteria that determine whether you are dealing with a mid-size or large city are purely subjective.

Allow me to post the definition of subjective because some still don't appear to comprehend:

sub·jec·tive Audio pronunciation of "subjective" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sb-jktv)
adj.

1.
1. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
2. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
2. Moodily introspective.
3. Existing only in the mind; illusory.
4. Psychology. Existing only within the experiencer's mind.
5. Medicine. Of, relating to, or designating a symptom or condition perceived by the patient and not by the examiner.
6. Expressing or bringing into prominence the individuality of the artist or author.
7. Grammar. Relating to or being the nominative case.
8. Relating to the real nature of something; essential.

I only started this thread to attempt to keep this "discussion" in one place.

Please, feel free to use this thread to debate the validity of purely subjective terms.

Then, we can debate whether 5'11" men are "tall" or "medium-sized".

Discuss.

Well, I'll start the discussion by stating that we should identify the precise criteria. Is it based on:

city population?
metro population?
gross metropolitan product?
aggregate income?
land area?
# of built amenities?
visitors (emphasizing place in national consciousness)?

My totally unofficial pick: aggregate income combined with relative isolation, because how much money you have determines how businesses see you as a market (and if you're less than thirty minutes away from another major city, your sizes are usually combined); studies tend to rely on population, however

Yes, It is asinine. However, several sources including the US Census buearu, The World Almanac, nearly every news service, and more declare any city with a metro population of 500,000 or more MAJOR. Oklahoma City has about 1.2 MILLION.

By proper, we are larger than many other MAJOR cities. Atlanta, St. Louis, Cleveland, Pittsburgh (just to name a few).

We are ranked 29 proper and 45 metro. This makes us MAJOR not mid-sized, medium or however you choose to word it.

In fact, Oklahoma City is among the largest cities with no major league team.

History: When Patience Latting was elected Mayor in 1967, every press organization said she was the first woman elected mayor of a MAJOR city, and a city of 350,000 or more in population.

It bothers me when people will underclass this city.

I would say OKC is a large city.

I think Mid-Sized Cities are like Wichita, Little Rock, ABQ, so on; which have substantial infrastructure (so they are not small cities like Enid), but they lack the population and resources of large cities.

I think the categories are as follows:

MegaCity pop 1,000,000+ in-city Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Houston
LargeCity pop 500,000 - 999,999 in-city San Francisco, Denver, Oklahoma City, Seattle
MediumCity pop 100,000 - 499,999 in-city Tulsa, Wichita, Little Rock, Kansas City, Atlanta, Edmond
SmallCity pop 10,000 - 99,999 in-city Enid, Midwest City, Everett WA, El Reno, Shawnee
VerySmallCity pop 5,000 - 9,999 in-city (with charter) Union City OK
Towne pop less than 9,999 (without incorporation charter) Forest Park (might be a city now), Smith Village OK

There has also been a Metro area definition, but OKC is still rated as a large city.

Metro Pop Ex
Mega +5,000,000 New York, Chicago, Los Angeles
Large 1,000,000 - 4,999,999 Dallas, Seattle, Oklahoma City
Medium 500,000 - 999,999 Tulsa, Wichita, Little Rock
Small 100,000 - 499,999 Enid
V. Small - 99,999

My usual benchmark for these things - because it takes into effect both size and, to some extent, influence - is the Nielsen Designated Market Area, which has supplanted Arbitron's Areas of Dominant Influence in terms of ranking television markets.

The last Arbitron ADI list ranked Oklahoma City 45th, which is precisely where it falls on the Nielsen DMA list. Where one chooses to draw the line between Large and Medium is, of course, subjective; my instinct is to draw it at the point where a DMA contains one percent of the country, right under Pittsburgh (#22, 1.082 percent). OKC is at 0.598 percent.

The list is here: http://www.nielsenmedia.com/DMAs.html

Isnt DMA based on cable/satt subscription for a metro?

wouldnt that take into account affluency as opposed to pure population?

Im not sure if that is a true measure of a large city - that almost every household has cable/satt subscription. but it is a trap that many have fallen into.

In terms of population alone (both metro and proper), I think it's indisputable we're a major city.

I agree, we are a major city / big city. No argument there.

But, I think we are a large city / Large Metro. Although I would agree that we are on the small end of the Large Metro scale.

Interesting to see that we have about 7 posts here and around 11 opinions :D

The great thing is that you are all right, with every single opinion. I don't know if that's "great' exactly, it's just an indicator as to exactly how subjective such terms are.

I agree that Oklahoma City is an excellent city, as well as a fairly large city.

One post on here refers to the 'mega super duper' city or whatever as being 2-3M+. Chicago, L.A., NYC, those are what I'd personally consider to be large-sized cities.

But again, this is like discussing whether someone's tall if they're 5'11".

The Nielsen quantifier is "TV homes," otherwise "homes using TV," which, inasmuch as more homes have television sets than have phone service these days, is pretty much universal. Over at TiVoCommunity, they're reporting that cable has dropped to 66.4 percent penetration with satellite up to 19.2, meaning that less than 15 percent of the nation is still tuned in with rabbit ears.

"Bright lights," sang Jimmy Reed, "big city." The lights in Oklahoma City are a heck of a lot brighter than they used to be.

"Bright lights," sang Jimmy Reed, "big city." The lights in Oklahoma City are a heck of a lot brighter than they used to be.


Oh yeah! OKC is definitely Bright Lights Big City.!!!

WindowPhobe, Nielson uses cable/satt for those TV homes. Im sure everyone in OKC has at least 2 tv sets, so you have to agree that they are looking at households with cable, not individuals with tv sets. That number would be much closer to our metro pop if this were the case.

Another thing I wanted to say about Nielson, is that statistic tends to penalize not only poorer metro areas (less people paying to watch tv) but it also penalizes metros whose households are large.

What I mean is, a household could consist of one person or two or more persons. OKC has a reasonably large household size (I think it is 2.6 people per household). So, that gives OKC a disadvantage when compared to Denver (a similarly sized city in total pop but with a smaller household size - like 1.7).

that is why Denver ranked so highly in Nielson while OKC is ranked in the middle - same city sizes but Denver has more 1 person households. does that equate to a larger tv audience?

No. If you tough 540,000 people with 300,000 households vs. 540,000 people in 430,000 households, is the 1st one smaller than the second.

You still touched 540,000 people (Denver is 560k but for comparison lets say it is 540). But Nielson would say the higher household count is the bigger market.

So, in a market like OKC with 2.6 residents per household, only 1 person in that household matters - no body else watches tv.

Anyways, I am saying all of this to cast doubt in Nielson - not only their ratings but how they derive markets. Further, I am saying that we should not rely on Nielson to rank us as a large or mid size city.

We should look for something more objective. Like the original definitions est by the US Census bureau. Which would classify OKC as a large US city, Large US metro, major/principle state city.

I would say OKC is a large city.

I think Mid-Sized Cities are like Wichita, Little Rock, ABQ, so on; which have substantial infrastructure (so they are not small cities like Enid), but they lack the population and resources of large cities.

I think the categories are as follows:

MegaCity pop 3,000,000+ in-city Chicago, Los Angeles, New York
X-LargeCity pop 1,000,000 - 2,999,999 in-city Dallas, Houston, Phoenix
LargeCity pop 500,000 - 999,999 in-city San Francisco, Denver, Oklahoma City, Seattle
MediumCity pop 100,000 - 499,999 in-city Tulsa, Wichita, Little Rock, Kansas City, Atlanta, Edmond
SmallCity pop 10,000 - 99,999 in-city Enid, Midwest City, Everett WA, El Reno, Shawnee
VerySmallCity pop 5,000 - 9,999 in-city (with charter) Union City OK
Towne pop less than 9,999 (without incorporation charter) Forest Park (might be a city now), Smith Village OK

There has also been a Metro area definition, but OKC is still rated as a large city.

Metro Pop Ex
Mega +5,000,000 New York, Chicago, Los Angeles
Large 1,000,000 - 4,999,999 Dallas, Seattle, Oklahoma City
Medium 500,000 - 999,999 Tulsa, Wichita, Little Rock
Small 100,000 - 499,999 Enid
V. Small - 99,999

I know Large Metro currently has a lot of cities (some 35 cities?). Maybe we could add an X-large Metro category, 3,000,000 - 6,000,000 - tho it would not have many cities in it. :whisper:

But OKC is definitely above the Mid or Medium ranking.

Did a little research.

US Census Bureau had several definitions of "large cities".

I saw 100K, 250K, and then, I found the following:



Large city - Central city of a standardized metropolitan area having a population greater than or equal to 400,000 or a population density greater than or equal to 6,000 people per square mile.

Mid-size city - Central city of a standardized metropolitan area having a population less than 400,000 and a population density less than 6,000 people per square mile.

Urban fringe of large city - Place within a metropolitan area of a large city and defined as urban by Census.

Urban fringe of mid-size city - Place within a metropolitan area of a mid-size city and defined as urban.

Large town - A town not inside a metropolitan area; has a population greater than or equal to 25,000.

Small town - A town not within a metropolitan area; has a population less than 25,000 but greater than 2,500.

Rural - A place with fewer than 2,500 people or a place designated as rural by Census.


Our population density according to wikipedia is: "321.9/km² (833.8/mi²) considering the entire city limits but was more than 2600/mi² for the urbanized area". One could make a great case that due to our ultra-low population density, we shouldn't really be considered such a large city.

It's an interesting discussion. I'd consider OKC to be 'on the fringe', but not quite there yet. We need to improve in terms of urban development, the creation of more entertainment venues, and for Chrissakes get a major league sports franchise!

Oh, if you're wondering about the census bureau stuff, here:

http://www.census.gov/prod/www/nshapc/datadocu/file1cbk.htm

http://www.google.com/u/census?q=large+city&sa=Go

Here's a nice article discussing the migration of young and educated people to "major" metropolitan areas (we're not listed):

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/mobility_of_the_population/001512.html

Excellent data.

I agree for the most part.

OKC is a large city, definitely a major city. But is at the beginning of large (especially metro area and overall density). But OKC's urbanized area is just like every other big city.

We should deannex rural parts of OKC and charge Oklahoma County to manage those "reserves" lands - the water reserves. This is making OKC become oversprawling while not really increasing our metro pop.

We could probably trim off 200 sq miles, down to 400 (like LA), and still have a city pop of 520,000 residents. We just have annexed all kinds of land for expansion and water reserve.

Lets get rid of it. its taxing on our city services. its taxing on our urbanization. it has been negative on our image.

Excellent data.

I agree for the most part.

OKC is a large city, definitely a major city. But is at the beginning of large (especially metro area and overall density). But OKC's urbanized area is just like every other big city.

We should deannex rural parts of OKC and charge Oklahoma County to manage those "reserves" lands - the water reserves. This is making OKC become oversprawling while not really increasing our metro pop.

We could probably trim off 200 sq miles, down to 400 (like LA), and still have a city pop of 520,000 residents. We just have annexed all kinds of land for expansion and water reserve.

Lets get rid of it. its taxing on our city services. its taxing on our urbanization. it has been negative on our image.

I agree. How many corporate researchers do you think have passed OKC up solely based on our population density? The way it looks, a major Department Store like Macy's/Nordstrums could only serve a small portion of the city no matter where it was located.

Our population density, even in urban areas is on the low side of the scale as well. I anticipate though, with the current trend of moving back to the downtown area/lifestyle, we'll begin to see an increase in high density housing that will really help that number out.

Also, our metro/downtown area compared to what I consider major cities (Dallas, Kansas City, etc.) is kind of weak. No new construction since 1984 as far as high rise buildings, a LOT of vacant space in our downtown area, etc. Fair or not, the downtown district of a city is the 'face' of the city. A lot of work needs to be done so that we look more like a big, nice city. In my opinion, Tulsa looks the part of a major city far better than we do at this point.

I was born In L.A. lived in Seattle for 9 years .I moved here which is a very long story,But anyways I consider OKc slighty above medium but are we talking the METRO?Norman ,Edmond incuded?just okc????

DarlingDiva

I was born In L.A. lived in Seattle for 9 years .I moved here which is a very long story,But anyways I consider OKc slighty above medium but are we talking the METRO?Norman ,Edmond incuded?just okc????

DarlingDiva

I will probably have some oposite opinions, however, the metro goes from Purcell to Guthrie south to north, El Reno to Shawnee (maybe a bit beyond) west to east.

Even SBC agrees with that one. Anything in the 405 area code is considered metro.

I will probably have some oposite opinions, however, the metro goes from Purcell to Guthrie south to north, El Reno to Shawnee (maybe a bit beyond) west to east.

Even SBC agrees with that one. Anything in the 405 area code is considered metro.

Wikipedia defines the Metro one degree short of you, at least north to south. It's a heck of a reference site.

I'd take their standard above SBC's though. SBC's service area is made to sell services, Wikipedia was written by independent researchers. I dunno.. another highly subjective type of situation. In my opinion though, Purcell is too far out and too seperated from Norman to really be considered contiguous with the rest of the Metro.

North:
Guthrie
Edmond
West:
Bethany
Yukon
Mustang
El Reno
East:
Del City
Midwest City
Choctaw
Shawnee
South:
Moore
Norman

One thing that makes a major city, a major city, in my opinion, is the urban central core. As someone mentioned, our urban core is somewhat lacking even with all the new Bricktown and Downtown stuff going on. Don't get me wrong, OKC is on the right track. Look down the road 10-20 years from now and we'll see a completely different face to the city. However, the fact is, as mentioned, office vacancy is high and there hasn't been any new skyscrapers since the early 80's.

On a positive note, I believe that with Bricktown booming we'll see a spill-over into downtown. We're seeing a resurgence on the west side of downtown in the arts disctrict with the Museum, Library and The Montgomery. Hopefully, between the two (literally) we'll see a spark of some sort. What will it take? More housing brings the need for more retail. Plus, a new class A office tower would be nice. Secondly, I think a new urban core will develop from regatta park down to about walker along the river. It'll be the "other" downtown eventually growing towards the north over the years. From Walker to Dell (I-44) will probably be more of a semi-urban/suburban style development.

In any case, I think once we get more of an "everything, all the time" downtown, we'll become more of a "big city"...in my opinion.

I dont disagree with all of you regarding OKC's inner city - it is lacking in many areas compared to other big cities. BUT you have to consider that OKC does have things in its inner city - we have a Chinatown, we have a Little Mexico, we have an Artists Neighbourhood, we have a downtown entertainment district, and we do have skyscrapers. Just because ours are not as new as Dallas does not mean that we are worse then them.

Honestly, downtown Dallas has high vacancies as well because corporations (even in Dallas) have moved out of downtown. OKC is actually moving ahead of the game compared to other big cities when it comes to downtown development.

Sure we need MUCH MUCH more! But, sometimes I think we Oklahomans beat ourselves up about things and make excuses when in reality - other cities have the same problem, if not worse. We should be happy with our inner city AND SUPPORT IT.

For this reason, whenever I come to Oklahoma City, I WILL ONLY STAY DOWNTOWN!!! And, when retail catches up downtown (as it is doing so), then I WILL ONLY SHOP DOWNTOWN and INNER CITY as well!

I hope the everyone on this site goes to the downtown events, if nothing more than to SEE what a BIG CITY you really have!

By the way, OKC did recently complete a new skyscraper downtown. It was the Renaissance Oklahoma City Convention Centre Hotel, at 15 storeys (175+ feet). If you dont believe me, emporis - the skyscraper web site, lists a skyscraper as a building above 12 floors or 100 feet (dont quote me on the feet however). Emporis also lists OKC with the Renaissance Hotel as a skyscraper.

OKC might be a Large Mid-Sized Metro. OKC probably is a Large City - City. But one thing is for sure - OKC is a Big City that is improving every day. Look at this thread alone for proof.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am really impressed with the way you all have conducted this discussion :Smiley173 . You all made some great points and many of you did lots of research on this subject. Even I have learned something from this. I am just amazed at the number of posts on this subject, just from today. I honestly didn't think this thread would take off like it did, but, man was I wrong. Even DarlingDiva chimed in :tongue: .

We have a great bunch of intelligent people on this forum, and you are all appreciated!!

All I can say is, keep this discussion going.

Well I travel to more than 40 cities 2 or more times a month with my job , I have lived in L.A. , and Las Vegas, and can say that as far as size goes we have all but 2 beat. I think OKC has more to offer than L.A. Lower housing prices,less traffic, less smog, and not as many butt holes to deal with. Las Vegas sucks for the locals because all there is to do is go to the strip and that gets old after 2 weeks. Okc is what 625 sq miles....Jacksonville I think is the only one bigger. Okc is alot cleaner than alot of places.

Well, since Oklahoma City's urbanized area is roughly 244 square miles, that would put our population density at about 2,193 per square mile, assuming Oklahoma City's population is around 535,000 as of July 2004, or a few months ago. I agree we should shed 200 square miles.

As far as managing a big city like Oklahoma City, I'd go by this general rule... if I never see it, we don't really need it. And I have never in my lifetime residency in Oklahoma seen 200 square miles of Oklahoma City, all rural.

I'm surprised....I always thought Atlanta and KC were larger than OKC. 2002 numbers: Pop of KC: 443,471, Atlanta: 424,868, OKC: 519,034

So, I guess size doesn't make a difference when it comes to pro sports teams, venues, etc. We're larger than Atlanta, KC, Cleveland, Las Vegas, Oakland, St. Louis, Buffalo, Louisville, etc. In size, we actually compete more with Denver, Portland, Las Vegas, Seattle, New Orleans, etc.

Here's the site I received my info from: http://www.city-data.com/top1.html

But, don't those areas have a much higher metro population?

From Wikipedia Re: density/size:


According to the United States Census Bureau, the city has a total area of 1,608.8 km² (621.2 mi²). 1,572.1 km² (607.0 mi²) of it is land and 36.7 km² (14.2 mi²) of it is water. The total area is 2.28% water.

Oklahoma City is the third largest city in the country in terms of geographic area, although its urbanized zone is only 244 mi² - resulting in an urban population density more comparable to that found in other major cities with unlimited growth available far into the future.

Patrick, as for a more fair list of populations including entire metros (I don't think it's very telling to just compare city sizes since we have such a large land mass and such a low density):

Rank Metropolitan Area States/Territories Type Population Other names*

1 New York--North Jersey--Long Island--Bridgeport--New Haven NY--NJ--CT--PA CMSA 21,199,865 Tri-state Area, New York area, Greater New York
2 Los Angeles--Riverside--Orange County CA CMSA 16,373,645 The Southland, Southern California (The latter also refers to the entire southern portion of the state)
3 Chicago--Joliet--Naperville--Gary--Kenosha IL--IN--WI CMSA 9,157,540 Chicagoland, Greater Chicago, Chicagoland and Northwest Indiana (the latter refers to the eastern part extended until South Bend, Indiana)
4 Washington--Baltimore DC--MD--VA--WV CMSA 7,608,070 Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Area
5 San Francisco--Oakland--San Jose CA CMSA 7,039,362 The Bay Area
6 Philadelphia--Wilmington--Atlantic City PA--NJ--DE--MD CMSA 6,188,463 The Delaware Valley
7 Boston--Worcester--Lawrence MA--NH--ME--CT CMSA 5,819,100 Greater Boston
8 Detroit--Ann Arbor--Flint** MI CMSA 5,456,428 Metro Detroit
9 Dallas--Fort Worth--Arlington TX CMSA 5,221,801 The Metroplex, DFW
10 Houston--Galveston--Brazoria--Baytown--Sugar Land TX CMSA 4,669,571 Houston Metropolitan Area
11 Atlanta GA MSA 4,112,198 Atlanta Metropolitan Area
12 Miami--Ft. Lauderdale FL CMSA 3,876,380 South Florida metropolitan area
13 Seattle--Tacoma--Bremerton WA CMSA 3,554,760 Greater Puget Sound
14 Phoenix--Mesa AZ MSA 3,251,876 The Valley of the Sun
15 Minneapolis--St. Paul MN, WI MSA 2,968,806 The Twin Cities
16 Cleveland--Akron OH CMSA 2,945,831 Greater Cleveland, Northeast Ohio
17 San Diego CA MSA 2,813,833
18 St. Louis MO, IL MSA 2,603,607 Greater St. Louis
19 Denver--Boulder--Greeley CO CMSA 2,581,506
20 San Juan--Caguas--Arecibo PR CMSA 2,450,292
21 Tampa--St. Petersburg--Clearwater FL MSA 2,395,997 Tampa Bay Area
22 Pittsburgh--New Castle PA MSA 2,512,302
23 Portland--Salem--Vancouver OR, WA CMSA 1,979,202
24 Cincinnati--Hamilton OH, KY, IN CMSA 1,979,202 Greater Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky
25 Sacramento--Yolo County CA CMSA 1,796,857

I'm surprised....I always thought Atlanta and KC were larger than OKC. 2002 numbers: Pop of KC: 443,471, Atlanta: 424,868, OKC: 519,034

So, I guess size doesn't make a difference when it comes to pro sports teams, venues, etc. We're larger than Atlanta, KC, Cleveland, Las Vegas, Oakland, St. Louis, Buffalo, Louisville, etc. In size, we actually compete more with Denver, Portland, Las Vegas, Seattle, New Orleans, etc.

Patrick:

This is what I've been saying all along. OKC is a large city!

While admittedly it would take rather a long time to fill up 607 square miles, I'm not in favor of deannexing anything unless the residents in a specific area ask for it. One of the reasons that a number of more-highly-regarded cities have slipped behind us is that they have nowhere at all to expand. (The poster child for this is St Louis, which is forever stuck in its little curve of the river, now with half the population it had fifty years ago.)

Besides, there are still people who want to avoid the city school district at any cost, regardless of whatever upgrades it's made, and if we can keep them in the city while they go to a suburban district, we're still ahead of the game. This task would be more difficult if we had less land area.

Okay, I see....much of the population in those other metro areas comes from suburbs. Still, interestingly, when you just compare city-size itself, I find it interesting that OKC is larger.
But, our numbers are probably a little over-inflated, because our city leaders back in the day decided to annex everything and anything. We once were the largest city in land area.

Anyways, thanks Midtowner for the info. By the way, what site did you get it from?

Oklahoma City's large physical size has turned out to be a blessing because it does capture the more affluent subdivisions and neighborhoods. Not a lot of cities can claim that their premier shopping center is within the city limits (Penn Square in OKC's case). OKC's sales tax collections, as well as its retail reputation would be smaller if Penn Square, Northwest Expressway, and some nicer subdivisions in South OKC weren't part of the city.

And windowphobe's point is true re: room to develop. OKC perhaps consumed too much when it annexed, but the ability to capture newer development that will attract wealthier households is an asset.

In a lot of cities the suburban style development going on on Memorial Rd. also wouldn't be included in the city's sales tax collections. So I suppose we're blessed to have city lines that stretch that far. The only drawback is that we have to maintain infrastructure to some of those "far-out" locations.

But, our numbers are probably a little over-inflated, because our city leaders back in the day decided to annex everything and anything. We once were the largest city in land area.



Patrick, I dont think OKC's numbers are overinflated. If you consider that OKC's Pop is near 540,000 and much of that is in the urbanized area.

From an earlier post, we now know that OKC's urbanized area is only 244 sq miles, I imagine at least 95% of OKC's city pop is in that urbanized area.

We could spit off 250 sq miles easy, and not lose population. I say, let OK county run the rural and watershed areas. Why does OKC need to do that?

In a lot of cities the suburban style development going on on Memorial Rd. also wouldn't be included in the city's sales tax collections. So I suppose we're blessed to have city lines that stretch that far. The only drawback is that we have to maintain infrastructure to some of those "far-out" locations.

For sure, Patrick.

Well, we've actually backed off somewhat; in the late Sixties the city was up to 640 square miles. (A few blocks down I-44 into McClain County and a fenceline in the far northwest have since been deannexed; Newcastle now controls that section of McClain.)

And there are still chunks of nearby space that have so far avoided annexation: the area around Trice Hill Cemetery (NE 50th and Coltrane) has eluded both Oklahoma City and Forest Park.

guys,

i am not suggestion we deannex memorial road or any other built-up area. Those are part of OKC's urbanized area (even tho they are suburban), its still Oklahoma City cityl

What I am suggesting to deannex is the SE portion of the city after Draper lake (east and south of it), the North east portion of the city (all of it NE of Forest Park), and Western OKC (west of the built-up areas of Sarah Rd).

The first two sections were deemed necessary to ensure development did not encroach upon the city's watershed. Well, there are state laws that could zone watershed as limited development - and we could let OK county manage the land/services.

Those two rural section s alone probably equate to 200 sq miles. The far western section is not watershed, but IMO OKC being "greedy". If we skim it off, OKC could probably drop another 50 sq mi. That would put us at 356 sq miles, pretty close to our urbanized area (244 sq mi) and we would still have over 100 sq miles to grow (assuming less than 20 sq miles is lake water - uninhabitable).

That is all I am saying, carve off the non-productive areas way out in the middle of nowhere. Let the county serve that area and the state protect the watershed. that way, more resources could be dedicated to the inner city - where the people live/work.