View Full Version : Google Fiber



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

metro
03-15-2010, 08:27 AM
OKC, Tulsa make pitch for Google broadband
By D. Ray Tuttle
The Journal Record
Posted: 09:17 PM Friday, March 12, 2010


TULSA – Oklahoma City and Tulsa are making a pitch for Google to build and test ultra-high-speed broadband networks in the cities. The Google project could provide service to as many as 500,000 people each in Tulsa and Oklahoma City.

Tulsa launched its campaign for community involvement on Friday, asking Tulsans to fill out an online survey before March 26.

“To be selected, we need community support,” according to the city’s statement. “By filling out a survey, Tulsa will be one step closer to improving our broadband network and creating economic development opportunities in all areas of our city.”

The announcement directed Tulsans to fill out the community support survey at Google Fiber for Communities: Think big with a gig (http://www.google.com/appserve/fiberrfi). A Google account is needed to participate and it is free to sign up.

Oklahoma City is assembling a task force to apply to partner with Google, said Kristy Yager, Oklahoma City public information and marketing director.

“We are moving on it,” Yager said. “We are working to establish a Web site.”

Since Feb. 10, Google has sought applications from communities across the U.S. to be one of numerous trial locations across the country.

Oklahoma City deserves the broadband project because of the investment it is making through projects like MAPS, among other factors, Yager said.

“We have a vibrant medical community that could certainly make use of the technology,” Yager said.

Tulsans and Tulsa businesses would improve their Internet access and promote Tulsa as a city on the cutting edge of communication and technology once it obtained the network, said Kim MacLeod, Tulsa director of communications.

A network for high-speed broadband would provide Internet speed more than 100 times faster than what most Americans have access to today. The service would be offered to Tulsans at a price – maybe through a lease arrangement with providers like Cox or AT&T, MacLeod said.

While Oklahoma City has a high penetration rate of people plugged into the World Wide Web, there are several other underserved communities that could make use of the technology, Yager said.

Also, Oklahoma City’s low population density might hurt the city’s chances, Yager added.

“I do not know that Google would lay fiber-optic cable in all 600 square miles,” Yager said. “But the possibility of getting high-speed broadband could change the way Oklahoma City does business.”

Google is not commenting on specific cities or the submissions at this stage, said a Google spokesperson, who requested anonymity.

“We plan to announce a target community or communities this year. We’ll use responses to our request for information to determine where building our network will have the greatest positive impact,” the spokesperson said.

“We’ll offer service at a competitive price to at least 50,000 and potentially up to 500,000 people,” the Google spokesperson said. “We will allow third parties to offer their own Internet access services, or other data services, on our open network. It’s too early to say how much we plan to charge for consumer access to our network.”

Google plans to develop the experimental network, although the company will likely work with a variety of outside partners.

“Our focus right now is on identifying the right community partners. We’ll be sharing more information about our techniques as this project progresses,” the company spokesperson said.

metro
03-15-2010, 08:32 AM
Oklahoma City is assembling a task force to apply to partner with Google, said Kristy Yager, Oklahoma City public information and marketing director.

“We are moving on it,” Yager said. “We are working to establish a Web site.”

We'll they better step on it, we have less than 2 weeks left.

fuzzytoad
03-15-2010, 08:37 AM
We'll they better step on it, we have less than 2 weeks left.

:LolLolLol

Is anyone even remotely surprised?

Kerry
03-15-2010, 09:16 AM
Also, Oklahoma City’s low population density might hurt the city’s chances, Yager added.

“I do not know that Google would lay fiber-optic cable in all 600 square miles,” Yager said. “But the possibility of getting high-speed broadband could change the way Oklahoma City does business.”

Yet another reason why OKC should consider mass de-annexation of rural land.

Spartan
03-15-2010, 12:42 PM
Every city in the state has applied for this..

kd5ili
03-15-2010, 12:53 PM
Every city in the state has applied for this..


LOL...every city in every state has probably applied for this.

-Chris-

dmoor82
03-15-2010, 03:15 PM
Yet another reason why OKC should consider mass de-annexation of rural land.

^^^and OKC's population wouldnt be that much lower either!all that unused,under developed land just sitttin there hurting our density!

Kerry
03-15-2010, 03:29 PM
^^^and OKC's population wouldnt be that much lower either!all that unused,under developed land just sitttin there hurting our density!

For what it is worth. If OKC was confined to existing urban developement the population density would be 3X higher.

Oklahoma City - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City)


As of the census[1] of 2000, there were 506,132 people, 204,434 households, and 129,360 families residing in the city. The population density was 321.9/km˛ (833.8/mi˛) with 2,317.4/mi˛ for an urban area[27] that occupies a small portion within the city's incorporated limits, which cover hundreds of square miles of rural land.

dmoor82
03-15-2010, 04:12 PM
^^^ I know!,but if you listen to out of towners,hell even Tulsan's, on other message boards/forums about OKC's density,you would think in OKC there is a house or two every 1/2 mile spread out over 607 sq/miles!LOL I mean come on people!and they actually believe this to be true,and use it against OKC!

Kerry
03-15-2010, 04:24 PM
^^^ I know!,but if you listen to out of towners,hell even Tulsan's, on other message boards/forums about OKC's density,you would think in OKC there is a house or two every 1/2 mile spread out over 607 sq/miles!LOL I mean come on people!and they actually believe this to be true,and use it against OKC!

Can you blame them? At 800 people/sq mile that is just over 1 person per acre, and that is the average. Think about that for a minute.

okcpulse
03-15-2010, 04:35 PM
Can you blame them? At 800 people/sq mile that is just over 1 person per acre, and that is the average. Think about that for a minute.

Kerry, Oklahoma City's urbanized area takes up only a 3rd of the city's entire land mass. That area covers 240 contiguous square miles and comprises of a population of 519,000, or 95% of Oklahoma City's entire population. The remaining 5% are scattered throughout Oklahoma City's rural areas outside of the urbanized area.

That translates to 2,162 people per square mile. This has been rehashed many times, and it is also why it is a bad idea to even rely on population density figures of a city's land area. The ONLY time population density of a city's kand area should be used are for cities who area 100% developed or are getting pretty close like Chicago, LA, New York or even St. Louis.

Think about THAT for a minute. Heck, you can even see where everyone lives in OKC just by looking at a wallmap.

Kerry
03-15-2010, 05:06 PM
Kerry, Oklahoma City's urbanized area takes up only a 3rd of the city's entire land mass. That area covers 240 contiguous square miles and comprises of a population of 519,000, or 95% of Oklahoma City's entire population. The remaining 5% are scattered throughout Oklahoma City's rural areas outside of the urbanized area.

That translates to 2,162 people per square mile. This has been rehashed many times, and it is also why it is a bad idea to even rely on population density figures of a city's land area. The ONLY time population density of a city's kand area should be used are for cities who area 100% developed or are getting pretty close like Chicago, LA, New York or even St. Louis.

Think about THAT for a minute. Heck, you can even see where everyone lives in OKC just by looking at a wallmap.

That is what I am saying. OKC needs to dump the rural portion. Regional retail marketing relies on population density, among other things.

dmoor82
03-15-2010, 05:11 PM
^^^^ YES! even if OKC dumped The rural portion,OKC's metro would still be The same!so no loss there, only about 40K loss for The city!

Kerry
03-15-2010, 05:17 PM
This is data from 1990 but is probably about the same. Of the 100 largest cities by population, OKC is 98th in density. At 2,162 we would move up to 78 - just between Austin and Freemont, CA.

http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0027/tab22.txt

dmoor82
03-15-2010, 05:25 PM
^^^Wow,OKC is a city built around The automobile and we need to break away from that as much as possible!I read somewhere that The most densely populated city /area in Oklahoma is The Village at just under 4k/sq mi.!That is still low compared to other cities,but alot of cities have a 50-100 year, or more head start on OKC!Kerry,2100k /sq mile is still low but alot better than the current 800-900/sq mile! BTW please excuse my grammar and typing!

Kerry
03-15-2010, 05:30 PM
^^^Wow,OKC is a city built around The automobile and we need to break away from that as much as possible!I read somewhere that The most densely populated city /area in Oklahoma is The Village at just under 4k/sq mi.!That is still low compared to other cities,but alot of cities have a 50-100 year, or more head start on OKC!Kerry,2100k /sq mile is still low but alot better than the current 800-900/sq mile! BTW please excuse my grammar and typing!

I'm not the grammar/spelling police. I leave that to people who are losing debates on the politics page.

Good point about the 100 years head start. I made that point in another thread a few weeks ago.

bbhill
03-15-2010, 06:09 PM
just voted online for okc. we have no chance in hell though. :dizzy:

okcpulse
03-15-2010, 08:15 PM
That is what I am saying. OKC needs to dump the rural portion. Regional retail marketing relies on population density, among other things.

Okay, I see whatr you are getting at. In that case, I second your motion. All in favor say aye.

SkyWestOKC
03-15-2010, 08:39 PM
Aye!

dmoor82
03-15-2010, 09:22 PM
Aye!

HOT ROD
03-15-2010, 11:11 PM
Aye

ljbab728
03-15-2010, 11:11 PM
That is what I am saying. OKC needs to dump the rural portion. Regional retail marketing relies on population density, among other things.

And then all of that area would eventually be taken up by suburbs meaning that OKC would get no tax benefits in 50 years. It would be like Tulsa or Dallas surrounded by suburbs with no area for expansion. The retail marketing people aren't so dumb as to not understand what causes population density figures and how that relates to their target markets.

betts
03-16-2010, 12:30 AM
The retail marketing people aren't so dumb as to not understand what causes population density figures and how that relates to their target markets.

Actually, I think the retail marketing people ARE that dumb. They also look at income rather than disposable income when making store location decisions. Those are two reasons why we don't have a lot of stores that other smaller cities do.

HOT ROD
03-16-2010, 01:34 AM
yep, they are that dumb.

Im not suggesting we get rid of ALL of the rural, Im suggesting we get rid of most of the watershed areas. I think we should keep the rural area that is near the already developed suburbs like the far SW/McClain County, the NW/Canadian/Kingfisher corner, and the N Central. Keeping these 3 would ensure OKC could expand retail if necessary to keep the tax base.

By getting rid of the West/Canadian County, NE, and SE/Potawattamie areas, we could still cut the city area in half by doing all of this, 300 sq mi is a nice figure to me.

But then again, OKC has so much inner city land to gentrify - I think (and hope) this becomes more of the focus for revitalizing the tax base instead of continuing city sprawl near the growing suburbs. ......

I really wish the city would define this as the growth boundary, and establish 'expectations' for inner city density based on rings drawn away from downtown.

Kerry
03-16-2010, 06:29 AM
And then all of that area would eventually be taken up by suburbs meaning that OKC would get no tax benefits in 50 years. It would be like Tulsa or Dallas surrounded by suburbs with no area for expansion. The retail marketing people aren't so dumb as to not understand what causes population density figures and how that relates to their target markets.

All that rural land and tax revenue doesn't come free to the city. The city is resposible for infrastructure construction (roads, sewers, etc) as well as providing public safety services (police stations, officers, fire stations, fire fighters, etc).

There is plenty of space in the exiting urbanized area that can be filled in and it would probably take another 50 years to do so. The city should also focus on increasing the current real estate values, and subsequent property taxes instead.

ljbab728
03-16-2010, 10:46 PM
All that rural land and tax revenue doesn't come free to the city. The city is resposible for infrastructure construction (roads, sewers, etc) as well as providing public safety services (police stations, officers, fire stations, fire fighters, etc).

There is plenty of space in the exiting urbanized area that can be filled in and it would probably take another 50 years to do so. The city should also focus on increasing the current real estate values, and subsequent property taxes instead.

Of course it's not free but as I mentioned previously if OKC gets rid of that land you can bet that some suburbs will grab it quickly and OKC will eventually become closed in losing a possible tax base. The economy, transportation trends, and social preferences will dictate if and when infill happens not how much land is available within city limits 20 miles from downtown. That land will still be there even if it isn't within OKC city limits. What happens 50 years from now may not be that important to our lives but we have to keep it in the back of our minds.

ljbab728
03-16-2010, 10:52 PM
Actually, I think the retail marketing people ARE that dumb. They also look at income rather than disposable income when making store location decisions. Those are two reasons why we don't have a lot of stores that other smaller cities do.

Betts, that might be true in a few cases but I just don't buy that as the main reasons.

betts
03-17-2010, 12:08 AM
Betts, that might be true in a few cases but I just don't buy that as the main reasons.

So what would be the reasons then? Why are we passed over for stores that cities like Wichita, Omaha, Albuquerque and Tulsa get? There has to be some misjudgement of the market for that to happen, and I don't know what else it would be.

Kerry
03-17-2010, 06:15 AM
Of course it's not free but as I mentioned previously if OKC gets rid of that land you can bet that some suburbs will grab it quickly and OKC will eventually become closed in losing a possible tax base. The economy, transportation trends, and social preferences will dictate if and when infill happens not how much land is available within city limits 20 miles from downtown. That land will still be there even if it isn't within OKC city limits. What happens 50 years from now may not be that important to our lives but we have to keep it in the back of our minds.

Yes - but the City of Oklahoma City won't be on the hook to provide services. If Edmond or Del City or some other town wants to grab up the land then let them be on the hook for building roads, sewers, police and fire protection.

I'll be willing to wager that if OKC deannex the rural land not one city would attempt to expand in size. Not only that but I'll bet a fair number of residents in these areas would prefer not to be part of a city. Let them get their services from the county.

metro
03-17-2010, 08:13 AM
Betts, that might be true in a few cases but I just don't buy that as the main reasons.

You'd be surprised. Retailers aren't that flexible when looking at numbers they are used to. Our country is so backwards when it comes to looking at proper statistics. Debt score (oops I mean "credit" score) and how you manage debt instead of net worth or ability to pay cash, college graduates and net income versus amount of disposable income, they don't look at cost of living indices, etc. etc.

Kerry
03-17-2010, 12:04 PM
You'd be surprised. Retailers aren't that flexible when looking at numbers they are used to. Our country is so backwards when it comes to looking at proper statistics. Debt score (oops I mean "credit" score) and how you manage debt instead of net worth or ability to pay cash, college graduates and net income versus amount of disposable income, they don't look at cost of living indices, etc. etc.

One of our resident bankers could probably elaborate but I imagine banks have near zero ability to use anything other than standard economic data. I don't see them using lots of asterisks to explain the numbers used when making a loan.

ljbab728
03-17-2010, 10:18 PM
Yes - but the City of Oklahoma City won't be on the hook to provide services. If Edmond or Del City or some other town wants to grab up the land then let them be on the hook for building roads, sewers, police and fire protection.

I'll be willing to wager that if OKC deannex the rural land not one city would attempt to expand in size. Not only that but I'll bet a fair number of residents in these areas would prefer not to be part of a city. Let them get their services from the county.

Kerry, they would then also be "on the hook" to get tax revenues 50 years from now that OKC wouldn't get. Don't be so sure about other cities not willing to annex. I'm sure that Mustang would be very willing to grab some land surrounding them since they are totally inclosed by OKC and can't expand. Whether the rural residents want to be part of a city isn't always a deciding factor. It certainly hasn't been in the past.

ljbab728
03-17-2010, 10:26 PM
So what would be the reasons then? Why are we passed over for stores that cities like Wichita, Omaha, Albuquerque and Tulsa get? There has to be some misjudgement of the market for that to happen, and I don't know what else it would be.

I agree and don't have an answer but I believe it is very easy for the retail marketing planners to see there isn't that much difference in the income and density information for OKC and the cities you mention. The retailers are in business to make money and if they think they can they will be doing what is necessary and where it is necessary to do it.

Kerry
03-18-2010, 06:35 AM
Kerry, they would then also be "on the hook" to get tax revenues 50 years from now that OKC wouldn't get. Don't be so sure about other cities not willing to annex. I'm sure that Mustang would be very willing to grab some land surrounding them since they are totally inclosed by OKC and can't expand. Whether the rural residents want to be part of a city isn't always a deciding factor. It certainly hasn't been in the past.

Your argument would make sense if governments (at any level) were swimming in money - but they aren't. Being a city is not a money making exercise. They cost more to operate than they bring in in revenue. Imagine if every new home or business in OKC tapped into existing infrastrucutre instead of the city being on the hook for new infrastrucutre for the next 50 years.

Which do yo think is better for the city - a new house on 15th St or a new house on a dirt road near Piedmont? Clearly the new house on 15th St is. They use existing infrastructure, existing police service, existing fire service, and on and on. That is almost pure 'profit' for the city. We are at a point where the city nees to start maximizing 'profit'. We don't need more loss-leaders (to use a retail term).

OU Adonis
03-18-2010, 07:57 AM
Hmm. So your saying that if OKC De-Annexed a ton of land and our population density suddenly shot up someone in Marketing will look at the numbers and say "Wow, since last year OKC must of had a population boom because their density is double of what it is."

Kerry
03-18-2010, 09:30 AM
Hmm. So your saying that if OKC De-Annexed a ton of land and our population density suddenly shot up someone in Marketing will look at the numbers and say "Wow, since last year OKC must of had a population boom because their density is double of what it is."

Nope - that is not what I am saying at all. Last year doesn't have anything to do with it.

There are two different thing being discussed in a cause and effect relationship. Reducing the city limits has a definite tax advantage for current city residents. Increasing the demographics of OKC in general has a different positive impact.

The goal is to make OKC look better on paper.

OU Adonis
03-18-2010, 10:08 AM
Nope - that is not what I am saying at all. Last year doesn't have anything to do with it.

There are two different thing being discussed in a cause and effect relationship. Reducing the city limits has a definite tax advantage for current city residents. Increasing the demographics of OKC in general has a different positive impact.

The goal is to make OKC look better on paper.

I understand the point of less area means less money spent on services. I get that.

But de-annexing the land won't change the feet on the ground in certain areas. It just looks good on paper. The money spent by Google to do their thing won't change. If they did come here they wouldn't be going to the under populated areas.

Kerry
03-18-2010, 01:02 PM
I understand the point of less area means less money spent on services. I get that.

But de-annexing the land won't change the feet on the ground in certain areas. It just looks good on paper. The money spent by Google to do their thing won't change. If they did come here they wouldn't be going to the under populated areas.

Google is the perfect example. On paper they look at OKC and say we can provide service to 600,000 people but we have to do that over 640 sq mi. Then they say we can get the same 600,000 in Austin and only have to cover 300 sq mi. They will never get into "but OKC has large rural portions" arguement because we'll never survive the first cut.

BTW - if you only counted OKCs urban area we would have a higher propulation density than Austin.

scootinger
03-18-2010, 09:29 PM
And then all of that area would eventually be taken up by suburbs meaning that OKC would get no tax benefits in 50 years. It would be like Tulsa or Dallas surrounded by suburbs with no area for expansion. The retail marketing people aren't so dumb as to not understand what causes population density figures and how that relates to their target markets.

I think some retail companies do focus on certain "milestones" as a deciding factor with regard to entering certain markets. The supposed reason that Target (among other retailers) has not opened a store in Stillwater yet is that the city has not reached a population of 50,000; therefore, the city is pushing efforts to get people (especially OSU students) registered as residents of Stillwater for the census this year.

ljbab728
03-18-2010, 11:11 PM
Your argument would make sense if governments (at any level) were swimming in money - but they aren't. Being a city is not a money making exercise. They cost more to operate than they bring in in revenue. Imagine if every new home or business in OKC tapped into existing infrastrucutre instead of the city being on the hook for new infrastrucutre for the next 50 years.

Which do yo think is better for the city - a new house on 15th St or a new house on a dirt road near Piedmont? Clearly the new house on 15th St is. They use existing infrastructure, existing police service, existing fire service, and on and on. That is almost pure 'profit' for the city. We are at a point where the city nees to start maximizing 'profit'. We don't need more loss-leaders (to use a retail term).

And Kerry, you're missing my point. That land in the rural areas will be developed at some point even if a house is built on 15th street. You're only looking at the short term interests. Of course cities aren't money making entities, but as I said if a city is locked in like Mustang, Bethany, Warr Acres, etc. they would love to have more land area to eventually have more revenue potential in the future. I consider the large annextions that OKC did many years ago to be probably one the most forsighted things this city has ever done.

Kerry
03-19-2010, 08:44 AM
And Kerry, you're missing my point. That land in the rural areas will be developed at some point even if a house is built on 15th street. You're only looking at the short term interests. Of course cities aren't money making entities, but as I said if a city is locked in like Mustang, Bethany, Warr Acres, etc. they would love to have more land area to eventually have more revenue potential in the future. I consider the large annextions that OKC did many years ago to be probably one the most forsighted things this city has ever done.

I don't think you can count Bethany and Warr Acres in this discussion because they are already surrounded by urbanized OKC (unless Bethany wanted to cross the river but I think that is Yukon). Now Mustang is another story. If OKC deannexed the land around Mustang and Mustang expanded, so what?

Let's say OKC kept that land and it was eventually developed and the city got back all the money it took to develope the infrastructure to where the city was at a break even point. Why wait 50 or 100 years to do that? We could accomplish that today if we just reduced the city limits. The city only collects enough money to break even. They aren't a compny that produces a profit and gives money to the shareholders. By increasing the density of the exiting city it will drive down the taxes each person has to pay to keep the city even.

upon further review... Take a look at Mustang. Clearly there are two different housing styles in Mustang - large low density lots that are older, and new high density housing. You can easily see this on Google Earth. This indicates to me that even Mustang knows high density development is cheaper to maintain on a per capita level.

ljbab728
03-19-2010, 10:38 PM
I don't think you can count Bethany and Warr Acres in this discussion because they are already surrounded by urbanized OKC (unless Bethany wanted to cross the river but I think that is Yukon). Now Mustang is another story. If OKC deannexed the land around Mustang and Mustang expanded, so what?

Let's say OKC kept that land and it was eventually developed and the city got back all the money it took to develope the infrastructure to where the city was at a break even point. Why wait 50 or 100 years to do that? We could accomplish that today if we just reduced the city limits. The city only collects enough money to break even. They aren't a compny that produces a profit and gives money to the shareholders. By increasing the density of the exiting city it will drive down the taxes each person has to pay to keep the city even.

upon further review... Take a look at Mustang. Clearly there are two different housing styles in Mustang - large low density lots that are older, and new high density housing. You can easily see this on Google Earth. This indicates to me that even Mustang knows high density development is cheaper to maintain on a per capita level.

Kerry, I'm aware of which cities are surrounded by urbanized areas. That wasn't a literal example. Oklahoma City can't increase it's density in reality at all by deannexing land. There still has to be infill and deannexation won't change that. The rural areas will continue to be developed as long as there is a market for it. I'm not arguing that rural development is better at all, just that it will continue anyway and Oklahoma City will lose out eventually by giving that development away to other cities. I lived in Mustang for over 30 years so I know probably more than you do about how it was developed. My father was at one time on both the city council and planning commission. The type of housing built there has nothing to do with cheaper maintenance for high density development. Most of the newer developments are actually on larger lots and less dense than the older ones.

Kerry
03-22-2010, 05:32 AM
Oklahoma City can't increase it's density in reality at all by deannexing land. There still has to be infill and deannexation won't change that.

I think people build in rural OKC for simple reason that they still have full access to city provided services. Do you think all of the 100,000 sq ft office buildings on Memorial would be there if they ran on septic systems?

ljbab728
03-22-2010, 10:07 PM
I think people build in rural OKC for simple reason that they still have full access to city provided services. Do you think all of the 100,000 sq ft office buildings on Memorial would be there if they ran on septic systems?

Kerry, that might be true for a few people but not for the vast majority. Most just like a rural environment. My father built his last house in Mustang on a 3 acre plot with a septic tank and water well and loved every minute of it. Having full access to city services was the last of his concerns. Of couse large office complexes won't build without city services but that's not really the issue here. You're talking about population density.

Kerry
03-23-2010, 10:13 AM
I think we are talking past each other so let me try a different approach.

At some point OKC is going to be built out. All 600+ sq miles will be urbanized. What are we going to do then? Expand the city limits even more? If the inevitable is "100% urbanization of the city" then why not just cut to the chase, reduce the city limits to the current urbanized area, and call it done? We reached the goal of "100% urbanized". At least my way we could enjoy the tax savings that come with 100% urbanization now, and not in 200 years.

ljbab728
03-23-2010, 10:46 PM
I think we are talking past each other so let me try a different approach.

At some point OKC is going to be built out. All 600+ sq miles will be urbanized. What are we going to do then? Expand the city limits even more? If the inevitable is "100% urbanization of the city" then why not just cut to the chase, reduce the city limits to the current urbanized area, and call it done? We reached the goal of "100% urbanized". At least my way we could enjoy the tax savings that come with 100% urbanization now, and not in 200 years.

Ok, so OKC is finished now. Forget about planning for the future or what our grandchildren and great grandchildren will deal with. It's all about us and now.

If OKC builds out it's city limits in 150 or 200 years of course they should consider expanding. We will never be and really don't want to be New York or Chicago in many respects. The city can still do things to incourage infill and higher density. As I've said over and over, if OKC doesn't a surrounding suburb will.

OKC@heart
03-23-2010, 11:33 PM
Ok, so OKC is finished now. Forget about planning for the future or what our grandchildren and great grandchildren will deal with. It's all about us and now.

If OKC builds out it's city limits in 150 or 200 years of course they should consider expanding. We will never be and really don't want to be New York or Chicago in many respects. The city can still do things to incourage infill and higher density. As I've said over and over, if OKC doesn't a surrounding suburb will.

If I may weigh in, I don't think this has to be a case of either/or. I think that Kerry is trying to suggest that an innovative way to limit the strain on the requirement of the City to provide infrastructure to the entire geographical area that comprises the City. This is certainly not intended to be the only solution, rather one that will aid the city in a multitude of ways.

Lower pressures and demand for infrastructure
Allow the budget the city does have to be more effectively spent on maintaining its current infrastructure
The reduction of land area will improve the cities stats as it relates to density (meaning avg. population per square mile)


I am sure that there are additional benefits such as allowing desirable retail stores that use such data to then be able to make the numbers work and open shop in the city. This will further enrich the city and add value to its residents and aid in the cities national image.

Now ljbab your statement regarding other things the city can do also has just as much merit. Certainly the City should impose a well considered ring that will encourage greater density within such. This has been done by geographical features (or topographical in some cases), in areas where it is available, and by incentives and restrictions in areas where there is no physical barrier to unfettered sprawl and unsustainable growth. It begins to prevent the throw away mentality of many developers and requires them to acknowledge that if they are to build it has to meet density standards as well as design guidelines. So that our city begins to once more be built with the thought that the buildings are here to last and contribute in a meaningful way to the fabric of the city.

The combination of these types of strategies would further strengthen and act as a quality control as we work to continue the momentum and permanence of Oklahoma City as a world class city. We all have to think bigger and more long term. Make the necessary adjustments now so that the private dollars that flow as a result of OKC's Renaissance will have maximum impact! So good job your both right and neither argument is mutually exclusive! you both win!:congrats::congrats::congrats::congrats::brigh t_id

ljbab728
03-24-2010, 10:20 PM
If I may weigh in, I don't think this has to be a case of either/or. I think that Kerry is trying to suggest that an innovative way to limit the strain on the requirement of the City to provide infrastructure to the entire geographical area that comprises the City. This is certainly not intended to be the only solution, rather one that will aid the city in a multitude of ways.

Lower pressures and demand for infrastructure
Allow the budget the city does have to be more effectively spent on maintaining its current infrastructure
The reduction of land area will improve the cities stats as it relates to density (meaning avg. population per square mile)


I am sure that there are additional benefits such as allowing desirable retail stores that use such data to then be able to make the numbers work and open shop in the city. This will further enrich the city and add value to its residents and aid in the cities national image.

Now ljbab your statement regarding other things the city can do also has just as much merit. Certainly the City should impose a well considered ring that will encourage greater density within such. This has been done by geographical features (or topographical in some cases), in areas where it is available, and by incentives and restrictions in areas where there is no physical barrier to unfettered sprawl and unsustainable growth. It begins to prevent the throw away mentality of many developers and requires them to acknowledge that if they are to build it has to meet density standards as well as design guidelines. So that our city begins to once more be built with the thought that the buildings are here to last and contribute in a meaningful way to the fabric of the city.

The combination of these types of strategies would further strengthen and act as a quality control as we work to continue the momentum and permanence of Oklahoma City as a world class city. We all have to think bigger and more long term. Make the necessary adjustments now so that the private dollars that flow as a result of OKC's Renaissance will have maximum impact! So good job your both right and neither argument is mutually exclusive! you both win!:congrats::congrats::congrats::congrats::brigh t_id

Thanks, lol. What do I win?

bretweller
03-27-2010, 01:48 PM
While Oklahoma City has a high penetration rate of people plugged into the World Wide Web, there are several other underserved communities that could make use of the technology, Yager said.

Also, Oklahoma City’s low population density might hurt the city’s chances, Yager added.

“I do not know that Google would lay fiber-optic cable in all 600 square miles,” Yager said. “But the possibility of getting high-speed broadband could change the way Oklahoma City does business.”



This above thinking is a false way of going about trying to bring Google fiber here. I'd like to point out the Q & A from Google's website.. Where the question was asked.. Google Moderator (http://www.google.com/moderator/#15/e=4828&t=4828.41&q=4828.1cde0)

"How large a geographic area can the Google project cover? We have urban areas but also rural areas that are in great need of this service for home and business use. We can reach 250,000 people over 2000 square miles. Is that acceptable?"
Google's Reply..
"We do not currently have geographic limitations, but we are most interested in deploying quickly and efficiently."


My name is Bret Weller and I'm a concerned citizen activist for Oklahoma City's push for Google Fiber. I spoke to City Council on 3/9/10 and was told the same thing as above by Mr. Couch.. After speaking to City Council I set up a website ( DreamBigOKC (http://www.dreambigokc.com) ) and a Facebook Group ( Bring Google's Gigabit Broadband to OKLAHOMA CITY! | Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=335926183806&ref=nf) ) Check them out..


I hope everyone of you did you part and submitted a "Nominate your Community Request!"

I'm really looking forward to seeing what are City Government can do to roll out the carpet for this revolutionary technology..



Here are a few clips and news stories I found very interesting, I hope you do as well.. Because even if we don't get Google Fiber we need to understand how the landscape of technology is going to be changing and we can facilitate this change if we're ALL ON BOARD!!

First take a look at this video.. Really an eye opener!

YouTube - Did You Know 4.0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ILQrUrEWe8&feature=player_embedded)





CDC released a report in 2007, and Oklahoma is #1 state with "Cell-Phone ONLY households." Considering the above video, we are primed for this information expansion.
(Check out pages 2 & 3.)
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr014.pdf



The conventional PC will be "irrelevant" within three years, or so
claims Google vice-president of Global Ad Operations John Herlihy.
Google Europe Exec: Desktop PCs 'Irrelevant' In Three Years - PCWorld (http://www.pcworld.com/article/190745/google_europe_exec_desktop_pcs_irrelevant_in_three _years.html)



Google CEO Preaches 'Mobile First'
Google CEO Preaches 'Mobile First' - PCWorld (http://www.pcworld.com/article/189554/google_ceo_preaches_mobile_first.html)



Google as well as Microsoft and other big name tech companies are going towards "Cloud Computing"
Cloud computing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing)



Digital for the first time will Outsell print advertising. Experts say this is "an industry milestone crossover event." ~~ All print advertising DOWN!
US advertisers to spend more on digital than print: study (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.642d53c67e2bcaf6302164c0de9f8c7 0.3d1&show_article=1)



Smartphones will shake up paid content debate | Reuters
Smartphones will shake up paid content debate | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUKLDE6291AB20100311?type=companyNews&symbol=AMZN.O)



Imagine if you will.. This current infrastructure, Oklahoma has in place
becoming available to ALL OF IT'S CITIZENS!!!!!
OneNet Research Corridor (http://co.canadian.ok.us/technical/category4/research_corridor.htm)

Glad to meet you all!

UnFrSaKn
03-28-2010, 03:22 PM
Next steps for our experimental fiber network

Official Google Blog: Next steps for our experimental fiber network (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/next-steps-for-our-experimental-fiber.html)

Somnio
03-29-2010, 09:35 PM
BTW - if you only counted OKCs urban area we would have a higher propulation density than Austin.

2000 census

Austin UA - 901,920 people in 823.9 sq. mi. (2835.1 persons/sq. mi.)

Oklahoma City UA - 747,003 people in 834.9 sq. mi. (2317.4 persons/sq. mi.)

List of United States urban areas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_urban_areas)

Latest estimates (I don't see any updated land area data)

Austin urban area population - 1,037,229
Austin, TX Urbanized Area - ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates: 2006-2008 (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=40000US04384&-qr_name=ACS_2008_3YR_G00_DP3YR5&-context=adp&-ds_name=&-tree_id=3308&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false&-format=)

Oklahoma City urban area population - 783,968
Oklahoma City, OK Urbanized Area - ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates: 2006-2008 (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-context=adp&-qr_name=ACS_2008_3YR_G00_DP3YR5&-ds_name=ACS_2008_3YR_G00_&-gc_url=&-tree_id=3308&-redoLog=false&-geo_id=40000US65080&-format=&-_lang=en)

metro
04-01-2010, 07:12 AM
Logged onto Google err I mean Topeka this morning, and thought they were hinting at the chosen city. I then realize today is April Fools Day. They have an explanation on their site if you click a hyperlink. Pretty funny.

http://www.okctalk.com/gallery/data/500/medium/Google.JPG

G.Walker
04-01-2010, 07:22 AM
Even though it was a April Fools joke, I think that Google with choose Topeka, its obvious. OKC can forget about it.

Kerry
04-01-2010, 07:41 AM
2000 census

Austin UA - 901,920 people in 823.9 sq. mi. (2835.1 persons/sq. mi.)

Oklahoma City UA - 747,003 people in 834.9 sq. mi. (2317.4 persons/sq. mi.)

List of United States urban areas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_urban_areas)

Latest estimates (I don't see any updated land area data)

Austin urban area population - 1,037,229
Austin, TX Urbanized Area - ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates: 2006-2008 (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=40000US04384&-qr_name=ACS_2008_3YR_G00_DP3YR5&-context=adp&-ds_name=&-tree_id=3308&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false&-format=)

Oklahoma City urban area population - 783,968
Oklahoma City, OK Urbanized Area - ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates: 2006-2008 (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-context=adp&-qr_name=ACS_2008_3YR_G00_DP3YR5&-ds_name=ACS_2008_3YR_G00_&-gc_url=&-tree_id=3308&-redoLog=false&-geo_id=40000US65080&-format=&-_lang=en)

@Somino - thanks for the info. I was relying on Wikipedia as well, just a different page on Wikipedia.

@Metro - Good stuff Google, I mean Topeka. I just wish they had played the April Fools joke all the way through and made www.topeka.com a search tool.

MadMonk
04-01-2010, 10:52 AM
Maybe we could settle for this.
Welcome to Google TiSP (http://www.google.com/tisp/)

mmonroe
04-01-2010, 02:18 PM
yeah, we're screwed, we didn't even bust the 1000 user submitted applications mark.

Architect2010
04-01-2010, 02:44 PM
2000 census

Austin UA - 901,920 people in 823.9 sq. mi. (2835.1 persons/sq. mi.)

Oklahoma City UA - 747,003 people in 834.9 sq. mi. (2317.4 persons/sq. mi.)

List of United States urban areas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_urban_areas)

Latest estimates (I don't see any updated land area data)

Austin urban area population - 1,037,229
Austin, TX Urbanized Area - ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates: 2006-2008 (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=40000US04384&-qr_name=ACS_2008_3YR_G00_DP3YR5&-context=adp&-ds_name=&-tree_id=3308&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false&-format=)

Oklahoma City urban area population - 783,968
Oklahoma City, OK Urbanized Area - ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates: 2006-2008 (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-context=adp&-qr_name=ACS_2008_3YR_G00_DP3YR5&-ds_name=ACS_2008_3YR_G00_&-gc_url=&-tree_id=3308&-redoLog=false&-geo_id=40000US65080&-format=&-_lang=en)

This doesn't click with me, not that I am getting into the urban density argument. But how is it possible that we have a 1.2 million metropolitan area but only 800 thousand are in the urban area? I am beyond certain that there are not 400 thousand rural residents in the city area. Someone help me make sense of this, population numbers always intrigue and confuse me. It's obvious I don't understand. :P Also, people always speak of our dismal density, but this system seems to give a more accurate picture of our true density. Why not use it instead?

Larry OKC
04-04-2010, 09:14 PM
It all sounds about right to me (remember that the OKC metropolitan area is more than just the OKC City Limits proper, if not mistaken it also includes such far flung places as Shawnee). The link listed OKC as being 834.9 sm, but "(a)ccording to the United States Census Bureau, the city has a total area of 621.2 square miles..." The "urban" area numbers might be "just" the urban area within OKC. By "urban" what do they mean (i.e., downtown?). But then again, seems you would have to include the "urban" areas in those other communities as well.

shane453
04-04-2010, 10:04 PM
The U.S. Census Bureau defines an urbanized area as: 'Core census block groups or blocks that have a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile (386 per square kilometer) and surrounding census blocks that have an overall density of at least 500 people per square mile (193 per square kilometer).'

They are just a way to calculate contiguously developed urban area. While Guthrie, Piedmont, etc are a part of the OKC Metropolitan area, they are not part of the Urbanized area because there is not contiguously developed land connecting them.

Check out this PDF map (http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/ua_ok_oklahomacity.pdf) of the Oklahoma City "Urbanized Area" as it looked at the time of 2000 Census, when the Urbanized Area measurement was first created. It only follows Census tract boundaries, not municipal or county boundaries.

Larry OKC
04-04-2010, 11:31 PM
Shane, thanks for the info and hope it cleared things up for Architect2010 (know it helped me)...if I am reading you correctly the higher density areas of the surrounding communities that are included in the overall number are not part of the OKC "urban" numbers since there isn't an unbroken thread? if so, that would help explain the 400K in the "rural" areas?