I noticed (on Wikipedia so take it for what it's worth) that since 2000, oklahoma city's population has grown substantially while tulsa's has actually decreased. I tried googling for articles on this but couldn't find anything. Anybody have any insights? Has something happened to the economy there? bad city planning? All the articles I read suggest that everything is "great" in tulsa... so why are people leaving?

They had some rough times in the early part of the decade; the exodus has pretty much ended, so far as I can tell.

And it should be noted that the city limits include only 183 square miles, about the same size as Norman. A lot of growth around the edge, therefore, is ending up in the 'burbs rather than in the city of Tulsa proper.

Plus, the MSA has actually increased over that period, from about 803,000 in 2000 to an estimated 860,000 in 2008. The CMSA is actually more if you include Washington County (Bartlesville).

And the key word for the city in the future: infill. Look it up if you're not sure what it means. As staed above, while OKC has about 600 sq m of land with a lot of undeveloped within the city limits, Tulsa has almost used up all hers.

Hopefully this (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090505_298_0_Amilli86106) will help us

Plus, the MSA has actually increased over that period, from about 803,000 in 2000 to an estimated 860,000 in 2008. The CMSA is actually more if you include Washington County (Bartlesville).

And the key word for the city in the future: infill. Look it up if you're not sure what it means. As staed above, while OKC has about 600 sq m of land with a lot of undeveloped within the city limits, Tulsa has almost used up all hers.

Hopefully this (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090505_298_0_Amilli86106) will help us

I will add that OKC has as much infill development happening as fringe growth. That should hopefully curb us from Houston-style sprawl.

Most other cities like Tulsa where the land is completely developed are seeing a resurgence in population growth, such as Miami, St. Louis, Denver and Atlanta. Every single one of those cities has years of population lag.

I will add that OKC has as much infill development happening as fringe growth. That should hopefully curb us from Houston-style sprawl.

Most other cities like Tulsa where the land is completely developed are seeing a resurgence in population growth, such as Miami, St. Louis, Denver and Atlanta. Every single one of those cities has years of population lag.

Contrary to what Tulsans like/wish to believe, Tulsa's land is NOT completely developed.

Contrary to what Tulsans like/wish to believe, Tulsa's land is NOT completely developed.

Compared to OKC it is. There's not much left in the city limits unless we go annexing and there's not much room to do that anymore.

Compared to OKC it is. There's not much left in the city limits unless we go annexing and there's not much room to do that anymore.

Note that roughly 300 square miles of land area in OKC will never be developed. It was set aside for land conservation and another reservoir.

Compared to OKC it is. There's not much left in the city limits unless we go annexing and there's not much room to do that anymore.

The comparison to OKC is irrelevant. The question being discussed is not "relative to OKC". The question is whether Tulsa has any undeveloped land, and there is plenty of room in Tulsa's city limits to develop. Take a more careful look.

Tulsa city, Oklahoma by Census Tract - TM-P002. Persons per Square Mile: 2000 (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ThematicMapFramesetServlet?_bm=y&-geo_id=16000US4075000&-tm_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_M00090&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&-_MapEvent=displayBy&-_dBy=140&-_lang=en&-_sse=on)

Note that roughly 300 square miles of land area in OKC will never be developed. It was set aside for land conservation and another reservoir.

I've never heard that before. Tell us more. Where is this 300 square miles located?

Is that two 10 mile by 15 mile chunks, or one 10 mile by 30 mile swath, or 3 ten by ten miles squares or one lean mean 5 mile by 60 mile swath, or perhaps a typo?

300 square miles is a lot of freaking dirt, however you draw the boundary lines.

I've never heard that before. Tell us more. Where is this 300 square miles located?

Roughly 100 square miles north of Yukon, a portion already devoted to the stinchcomb wildlife refuge; 150 square miles southeast of the urban core south of I-240 and east of Lake Stanley Draper. A portion just went of Stanley Draper has been reserved for a future reservoir (Elm Creek). The remainder is for land conservation, and 50 square miles northeast of OKC, set aside for land conservation, flood control and a possible reservior.

I ran across a long term land use plan developed by the Oklahoma City Planning Commission when I was doing research one night. I will try and track it down, save it to the hard drive and post a screenshot on here.

Is that two 10 mile by 15 mile chunks, or one 10 mile by 30 mile swath, or 3 ten by ten miles squares or one lean mean 5 mile by 60 mile swath, or perhaps a typo?

300 square miles is a lot of freaking dirt, however you draw the boundary lines.

Three sections, all correlating to the large tracts of land area that are far away from the urban core. I have not doubt that for quite some time, city planners have wanted to make sure than Oklahoma City can one day draw on natural resources as well as commercial resources with little intervention from another municipality or the state. In a way, it makes sense.

Roughly 100 square miles north of Yukon, a portion already devoted to the stinchcomb wildlife refuge; 150 square miles southeast of the urban core south of I-240 and east of Lake Stanley Draper. A portion just went of Stanley Draper has been reserved for a future reservoir (Elm Creek). The remainder is for land conservation, and 50 square miles northeast of OKC, set aside for land conservation, flood control and a possible reservior.

I ran across a long term land use plan developed by the Oklahoma City Planning Commission when I was doing research one night. I will try and track it down, save it to the hard drive and post a screenshot on here.

I'm afraid you need to check your facts.

Here is the [/URL]OKC Plan 2000-2020:

[url]http://www.okc.gov/planning/okc_plan/documents/OKCPlan2000-2020.pdf (http://www.okc.gov/planning/okc_plan/documents/OKCPlan2000-2020.pdf)

Take a look. The maps show nothing of the magnitude you write of. The area around Stanley Draper consists of 30 square miles, at most, not 150. The area east of that is designate rural for the planning period (through 2020). That does NOT exclude it from development forever.

Likewise for the area north of Yukon. First, the area north of Yukon within OKC's limits only contains approximately 27 square miles and, second, none of it is shown to be forever off limits to development; it is merely designated as "rural" for the planning period.

I'm afraid you need to check your facts.

Here is the [/URL]OKC Plan 2000-2020:

[url]http://www.okc.gov/planning/okc_plan/documents/OKCPlan2000-2020.pdf (http://www.okc.gov/planning/okc_plan/documents/OKCPlan2000-2020.pdf)

Take a look. The maps show nothing of the magnitude you write of. The area around Stanley Draper consists of 30 square miles, at most, not 150. The area east of that is designate rural for the planning period (through 2020). That does NOT exclude it from development forever.

Likewise for the area north of Yukon. First, the area north of Yukon within OKC's limits only contains approximately 27 square miles and, second, none of it is shown to be forever off limits to development; it is merely designated as "rural" for the planning period.

Ahhh... that was the map I was looking for. The article I read a few years back suggested that rural areas would never be developed, and was set aside for "land conservation". I was thinking that land conservation was set aside in rural areas but I had forgotten about environmental conservation. There is no "land conservation". In this case I stand corrected.

However, looking at the map you to see the areas highlighted in yellow as set aside for urban development, a lot of which has yet to be developed.

Reading the plan explains a lot of why the annexation spree happened, and also explains Oklahoma City's intention with rural areas. I will paste the following exerpts from the 2020 plan...

"Because of the large incorporated area and its location between the woodlands to the east and the
rolling prairie to the west, Oklahoma City has a wide variety of rural areas. These areas include the
wooded areas to the east and northeast, the rolling and partially wooded countryside east of Draper
Lake, the scenic areas south of Mustang, and gentle prairie topography in the north and northwestern
parts of the city. All these areas provide a rich and scenic context for the urban area and contain a
variety of assets that are in critical need of protection."

"Many of the rural areas are in the watershed areas of Oklahoma City’s lakes (and surrounding
lakes, such as Thunderbird and Arcadia) that provide storage for the region's water supply.
Protection of these areas was a reason for the aggressive annexation program of the 1960's."

"The surrounding rural areas provide a scenic context for the city. Properly protected, the
surrounding rural areas can pleasantly contrast with the intense development of the city and be a
source of community enjoyment and pride."

Does this suggest a Urban Growth Boundary similar to Portland, OR?

Good luck with that.

I think a lot of Tulsans branched out to Broken Arrow, Jenks, Collinsville, Sapulpa, and so forth.

New homes, less traffic - like everywhere, for now anyways.

I moved to Tulsa within the last year - it is most definitely NOT 'completely' developed. There is tons of lands open for growth, just most people never see it because they like to stay away from 'that side of town.' Go look at a map of Tulsa - even north of 21st and Memorial area or anywhere eats of Univ Tulsa you'll see tons of places with no grid roads yet. There is plenty of room to build. Tulsa is no more developed than OKC.... I don't know where people come up with this stuff...

I noticed (on Wikipedia so take it for what it's worth) that since 2000, oklahoma city's population has grown substantially while tulsa's has actually decreased. I tried googling for articles on this but couldn't find anything. Anybody have any insights? Has something happened to the economy there? bad city planning? All the articles I read suggest that everything is "great" in tulsa... so why are people leaving?

generally, the reason why cities lose population is because the jobs they offer dont match up to the types of jobs offered elsewhere. another reason is standards of living. people want the best jobs, the best quality of life, all for the best pricetag they can get it for.

Tulsa has lost population to the thriving suburbs of Broken Arrow, Owasso, Glenpool, Jenks, Bixby, etc...

I moved to Tulsa within the last year - it is most definitely NOT 'completely' developed. There is tons of lands open for growth, just most people never see it because they like to stay away from 'that side of town.' Go look at a map of Tulsa - even north of 21st and Memorial area or anywhere eats of Univ Tulsa you'll see tons of places with no grid roads yet. There is plenty of room to build. Tulsa is no more developed than OKC.... I don't know where people come up with this stuff...

Welcome to town....I was born and raised in Tulsa and have lived on all sides of town except the west side. You are correct that there is land available on the North side. But TONS, I'm trying to think where you believe TONS of land is available. If you can be specific that would help. I can honestly say that I don't know where in the city of Tulsa you can drive for square mile after square mile, like you can in OKC, and see large swaths of undeveloped land.

The only large areas of land open for growth would be in North Tulsa. Planners in the city have known that for years, as the city has continued to grow to the South and East. But again I would debate the quantity.

generally, the reason why cities lose population is because the jobs they offer dont match up to the types of jobs offered elsewhere. another reason is standards of living. people want the best jobs, the best quality of life, all for the best pricetag they can get it for.

Those reasons all sound plausible. But fortunately for Tulsa, they don't apply. The only one that sorta fits in a round about way is jobs. In that the years leading up to the population decline, Tulsa had numerous quality jobs. This inventory of jobs took a hit during the "Oil Bust" and the "Telecom Bust". Tulsa's downfall was not having the ability to fall back on Government jobs to absorb the workers.

The biggest reason for Tulsa's population drain, as someone has pointed out, was tremendous growth in the burbs, fueled by cheap developable land and higher regarded school districts.

Welcome to town....I was born and raised in Tulsa and have lived on all sides of town except the west side. You are correct that there is land available on the North side. But TONS, I'm trying to think where you believe TONS of land is available. If you can be specific that would help. I can honestly say that I don't know where in the city of Tulsa you can drive for square mile after square mile, like you can in OKC, and see large swaths of undeveloped land.

The only large areas of land open for growth would be in North Tulsa. Planners in the city have known that for years, as the city has continued to grow to the South and East. But again I would debate the quantity.

You're arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

The fact is, as lonestar said, the oft-heard excuse for no- or slow-growth, (that Tulsa is "completely developed") is simply not true. Whether it's "tons" or "plenty" or "a lot", the fact is, there is developable land.

Even you admit that there are large areas of land open for growth in north Tulsa. That rather steps on your point and closes the argument, doesn't it? Tulsa is not "fully developed."

(and I'm pretty sure if you look, you can find some undeveloped land inside Tulsa's city limits on the east, west and probably even south sides.)

Welcome to town....I was born and raised in Tulsa and have lived on all sides of town except the west side. You are correct that there is land available on the North side. But TONS, I'm trying to think where you believe TONS of land is available. If you can be specific that would help. I can honestly say that I don't know where in the city of Tulsa you can drive for square mile after square mile, like you can in OKC, and see large swaths of undeveloped land.

The only large areas of land open for growth would be in North Tulsa. Planners in the city have known that for years, as the city has continued to grow to the South and East. But again I would debate the quantity.




You're arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

The fact is, as lonestar said, the oft-heard excuse for no- or slow-growth, (that Tulsa is "completely developed") is simply not true. Whether it's "tons" or "plenty" or "a lot", the fact is, there is developable land.

Even you admit that there are large areas of land open for growth in north Tulsa. That rather steps on your point and closes the argument, doesn't it? Tulsa is not "fully developed."

(and I'm pretty sure if you look, you can find some undeveloped land inside Tulsa's city limits on the east, west and probably even south sides.)

Yes, there is land available in north Tulsa, even more when you consider the fenceline, but the problem there is that a lot of it is in the Bird Creek floodplain. Tulsa also has quite a bit of land available in Osage County, some in the southwest portions near Tulsa Hills, and lots of available land in east Tulsa. The corporate limits actually extend two miles or so east of the Creek Turnpike just south of 412. Out there, there is literally mile after mile of undeveloped land. Now, the whole rub with all of this available land is its current desirability in being developed. I think east Tulsa will see growth as Broken Arrow continues to move north, which is actually already occurring. Southwest Tulsa will likely see growth due to Tulsa Hills. When the Gilcrease Expressway gets built, Tulsa will likely see more growth in Osage County. I'm not sure about north Tulsa. The floodplain issue coupled with negative stereotypes (fact or fiction), make it less desirable for residential. I could see more industrial growth, especially in or near the Cherokee Industrial Park and points east of the airport.

You're arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

The fact is, as lonestar said, the oft-heard excuse for no- or slow-growth, (that Tulsa is "completely developed") is simply not true. Whether it's "tons" or "plenty" or "a lot", the fact is, there is developable land.

Even you admit that there are large areas of land open for growth in north Tulsa. That rather steps on your point and closes the argument, doesn't it? Tulsa is not "fully developed."

(and I'm pretty sure if you look, you can find some undeveloped land inside Tulsa's city limits on the east, west and probably even south sides.)


I actually meant to put TONS in quotations. Such as "TONS", to emphasize the point that I do not agree with that assesment.

My argument is that there is not "TONS" of developable land in Tulsa. Furthermore, to clarify my argument is not that Tulsa is "completely developed", my claim is Tulsa is highly developed. I absolutely agree that there is developable land in Tulsa. And by large, meaning more than one or two adjacent parcels.

And I don't have to look or hunt to find the abundance of undeveoped land in OKC. That's my point.

Yes, there is land available in north Tulsa, even more when you consider the fenceline, but the problem there is that a lot of it is in the Bird Creek floodplain. Tulsa also has quite a bit of land available in Osage County, some in the southwest portions near Tulsa Hills, and lots of available land in east Tulsa. The corporate limits actually extend two miles or so east of the Creek Turnpike just south of 412. Out there, there is literally mile after mile of undeveloped land. Now, the whole rub with all of this available land is its current desirability in being developed. I think east Tulsa will see growth as Broken Arrow continues to move north, which is actually already occurring. Southwest Tulsa will likely see growth due to Tulsa Hills. When the Gilcrease Expressway gets built, Tulsa will likely see more growth in Osage County. I'm not sure about north Tulsa. The floodplain issue coupled with negative stereotypes (fact or fiction), make it less desirable for residential. I could see more industrial growth, especially in or near the Cherokee Industrial Park and points east of the airport.

Wait a minute, I thought the discussion centered around developable land in the incorporated urban core. Now, we're talking about fencelines and Osage county and the such. Please let me know if the paramiters of the discussion have changed. :doh:

East Tulsa, as other areas you have mentioned will not grow for one inherant reason or another. In East Tulsa its Limestone. Limestone makes a large portion un-developable. Hence, the demise of the Eastland Mall area. Further East around the Creek Turnpike as you mention, you're in Wagoner county. Until recently, Osage county land near Tulsa had been held in trust for years. There is development there now and will be more to come. (NW Passage) I don't see anyone developing in that Wagoner county area unless it receives services from BA

Developable Land is not merely the fact that there is currently nothing there.

But in any case I thought the discussion centered around developable land in the urban core. So if its not, then my bad.

Wait a minute, I thought the discussion centered around developable land in the incorporated urban core. Now, we're talking about fencelines and Osage county and the such. Please let me know if the paramiters of the discussion have changed. :doh:

East Tulsa, as other areas you have mentioned will not grow for one inherant reason or another. In East Tulsa its Limestone. Limestone makes a large portion un-developable. Hence, the demise of the Eastland Mall area. Further East around the Creek Turnpike as you mention, you're in Wagoner county. Until recently, Osage county land near Tulsa had been held in trust for years. There is development there now and will be more to come. (NW Passage) I don't see anyone developing in that Wagoner county area unless it receives services from BA

Developable Land is not merely the fact that there is currently nothing there.

But in any case I thought the discussion centered around developable land in the urban core. So if its not, then my bad.


No, we are still talking about incorporated City of Tulsa, which includes portions of Osage County, which is a stones throw from downtown (very much urban core, though very much under developed). I only mentioned the fenceline for north Tulsa because the city has dibbs on that land in the future.

East Tulsa is already seeing growth. There are new subdivisions at 41st and 129th East Ave, along 51st between 161st and 193rd East Ave, and at 41st and 193rd East Ave, all within the City of Tulsa. Now, I totally agree that the Wagoner County portions of east Tulsa won't see growth at least for a very long time. As for southwest Tulsa, there are houses being built at 81st and Elwood and there will probably be more to come. There is also room for growth in far south Tulsa and new subdivisions still being filled in that area. Plus there are lots of parking lots in downtown and uptown that could be converted to residential and/or mixed uses that incorporate residential. In essence, Tulsa has lots of room for growth, be it infill or greenfield development.