View Full Version : New 2008 Population Estimates



adaniel
03-19-2009, 08:48 AM
Just in case anyone is interested.....

http://newsok.com/durant-oklahoma-city-metro-areas-see-population-jump/article/3354571?custom_click=lead_story_title

OKC 2008 Population: 1,206,142
Tulsa 2008 Population: 916,079

Also, here is the link to the US Census Bureau data. It looks like OKC and Oklahoma compare favorably.

Population Estimates (http://www.census.gov/popest/metro/metro.html)

Pete
03-19-2009, 08:50 AM
It's also interesting that OKC grew at a rate of over 10% while Tulsa was only 6.6%.

soonerguru
03-19-2009, 09:20 AM
Has OKC passed 600k yet in actual, not metro, population?

Oil Capital
03-19-2009, 09:26 AM
Has OKC passed 600k yet in actual, not metro, population?

2008 city population estimates aren't out yet.

theparkman81
03-19-2009, 02:47 PM
Do U guys think that OKC metro population will be 2 million by 2015 or sooner

metro
03-19-2009, 03:30 PM
Haha, not barring a major disaster somewhere else, which I wouldn't wish for. Now maybe 2 million by 2020, if we push full steam with MAPS 3 and it consists of decent projects (which it probably will).

stlokc
03-19-2009, 03:41 PM
Metro-I love your optimism. But 60% population growth in 11 years? Not possible.

20% over the next decade, which is aggressive but within the realm of reason would put us at 1,447,000.

fromdust
03-19-2009, 03:50 PM
okc: 1,436,383 by 2020?

Metropolitan Area Demographic Economic Characteristics and Change (http://proximityone.com/metros.htm#msa2020)

theparkman81
03-19-2009, 04:55 PM
You know just to think about it , actually you may be right fromdust, OKC metro would probably be around 1.5 million by 2020.

soonerfever
03-19-2009, 09:59 PM
The more development OKC has it can't help but draw more people in. Just like you guys said, if MAPS3 is put through and includes what everyone is saying, OKC will continue to grow. I know that things aren't perfect but its crazy how OKC doesn't seem to be effected by the economic downturn. I hope the city stays on this path!

redland
03-20-2009, 06:33 AM
The combined metropolitan statistical area (CMSA) adds an adjoining micropolitan country to the SMA. For Oklahoma City, this adds Pottawatomie County (Shawnee) and for Tulsa Washington County (Bartlesville) is added. The figure for Oklahoma City then becomes 1,275,758 and for Tulsa 966,531. As much as many of us hoped for it, it now looks as though Tulsa will not make the 1,000,000 mark in the 2010 census. Nevertheless both of Oklahoma's major metro areas are doing quite well.

Kerry
03-20-2009, 07:18 AM
Metro-I love your optimism. But 60% population growth in 11 years? Not possible.

20% over the next decade, which is aggressive but within the realm of reason would put us at 1,447,000.

The history of OKC growth is not slow and steady - historically it grows at a very slow rate with a burst of high growth that last for a few years. As the economy and state problems in California worsen look for even larger groups of people from California (and Arizone for that matter) to move to Oklahoma.

As for high sustainable growth rates, metro Atlanta had a population of 2 million in 1994 and 10 years after the Olympics they had 4 million, and is still growing at 125,000 per year. Not saying that OKC will ever see those growth numbers but it does show that success breeds success and at some point the growth becomes self-propelled.

bombermwc
03-20-2009, 07:26 AM
And unfortuneately, Atlanta's infrastructure didn't keep up. Talk about traffic!

Oil Capital
03-20-2009, 09:35 AM
As for high sustainable growth rates, metro Atlanta had a population of 2 million in 1994 and 10 years after the Olympics they had 4 million, and is still growing at 125,000 per year. Not saying that OKC will ever see those growth numbers but it does show that success breeds success and at some point the growth becomes self-propelled.

You need to check your facts. Atlanta metro area already had a population of 2.8 million in the 1990 census. The 1996 estimate was just over 3.5 million. They had 4.1 million in the 2000 census. FWIW, their 2008 estimate is 5.376 Million (up 115, 000 from the 2007 estimate). They have never added 2 Million people in a 12 year period.

southernskye
03-20-2009, 10:10 AM
Four metro areas--including two in Texas--increased their populations by more than 100,000 people between 2007 to 2008: Dallas-Fort Worth (147,000), Houston (130,000), Phoenix (116,000) and Atlanta (115,000)


Austin was the nationís second-fastest-growing metropolitan area between 2007 and 2008, according to new data from the U.S. Census Bureau

Austin Biz Journal (http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2009/03/16/daily51.html?ana=from_rss)

PennyQuilts
03-20-2009, 05:26 PM
I'm betting there will be a lot of people of retirement age returning "home" to Oklahoma in the next fifteen years. That would be a bump.

Bunty
03-20-2009, 05:45 PM
I'm betting there will be a lot of people of retirement age returning "home" to Oklahoma in the next fifteen years. That would be a bump.

A lot of them will be OU and OSU retired alumni sports fans wanting to return to Norman and Stillwater to live and watch the Sooners and Cowboys perform for their retirement years.

oustud7
03-20-2009, 06:17 PM
I am always kinda miffed by everyone on this board who wants to inflate the population numbers of oklahoma city as high as possible. They want to use the broadest definition of a metro area possible just to add a few more people to the roll (and for that matter, whats the deal with having like 5 different definitions of a metro area? MSA, CSA... its all too messy.). They envision Oklahoma City as this booming, cancerous metropolis when in fact all it is and all it will probably ever be is a nice, clean, medium sized city. Why is that a bad thing? Just because a city is bigger doesn't mean it's neccesarily better. Detroit and Miami are about the same size, but Miami is beautiful and vibrant whereas Detroit is a s***hole. Honolulu and Tulsa are about the same size, too. Atlanta and Houston are roughly the same size too, but if you happen to be black, wouldn't you probably prefer Atlanta? Shouldn't people focus more on the quality of life or how well a place matches their lifestyle rather than raw numbers? Or hoping that a BUNCH of old people or unemployed Californian families move in because they're too poor to stay where they are? Just because a place is populated doesn't mean it's great. And just because a place is small doesn't make it worthless. Thats one of the big problems about the Oklahoma inferiority complex. If you want to live in a big city, MOVE to a big city.

Thanks for letting me rant.

PennyQuilts
03-20-2009, 06:27 PM
Rant away. I live in a highly populated area and it is horrible. Sometimes I look at the OKC traffic camera just to see reasonable traffic and just sigh. I fully realize how pathetic that is.

stlokc
03-20-2009, 07:24 PM
OUStud7-
I don't necessarily disagree with you. As a matter of fact, I think you have made some extremely valid points. If OKC could grow by 200,000 people over the next decade and all 200,000 were poor, retired people moving into assisted living, the city would not necessarily be any better off for the added population. But it seems to me, as it does to many, that OKC is putting into place the amenities and cultivating the mindsets that are necessary to be a more interesting and serious place.

We are just, at the moment, still a little bit smaller than our dreams. Might the Thunder struggle with attendance in the years ahead? Maybe. But imagine how much more solid it would be with 20% more potential attendees on any given night. Is the downtown living movement thriving? It would seem to be on the surface, but how much more momentum would come, how many more developers might make the investment with 20%more of a market to draw from? If our arts organizations could raise 20% more money, are there exhibits and performances they could bring to OKC that they can't quite get at the moment? Would an upscale department store, or more nice restaurants, be more likely to jump into a market of 1.4 million than 1.2 million? Would 20% more air travelers leaving and arriving at Will Rogers make airlines decide to have more non-stops to the coasts? Much more to the point, would having 20% more entrepreneurs make it 20% more likely that the next innovative company would take root in OKC? Would all these kinds of improvements help to create a higher quality of life that would draw a big company to locate an office here, or even a headquarters?

OKC is a nice, clean, medium sized city. And that's great. It's my hometown. But as a general rule, cities that are a little bit bigger tend to draw a little bit more of - well - everything. And most people like to have a little bit more of - well- everything. That's why bigger urban areas have, in the last century, seen the lions share of growth. Some cities much smaller than OKC thrive more because they are blessed with natural features that we don't have. OKC is stuck on the plains. It needs to grow its own reasons for being. And that is easier with a higher population of people.

aintaokie
03-20-2009, 07:47 PM
I thought older sports fans were already coming to Norman & Stillwater in droves from several years back.