So where does OKCs (incl. Shawnee of course) numbers project on a yearly basis? Like what will the total metro area be in 2015-2020 -2025 - 2030 ?

2015: 1,325,000
2020: 1,415,000
2030: 1,600,000

those projections seem quite a bit conservative. ....

I would think:

2015 - 1,400,000 (since we already officially at 1,252,000 in 2010; I think MSA growth of 150K in 5 years is reasonable with OKC city seeing a strong growth spurt and Edmond finally cracking the 100K mark, Moore not too far behind).
2020 - 1,600,000 (since my 2015 estimate is 1.4M, I dont think 1.6 therebouts is ooq for 2020; and that is a reasonable 350K growth over 2010; with OKC becoming a strong 700K with a healthy core, and Edmond, MWC, Moore all above 100K, Norman above 150k fulltime, and Yukon, Mustang, and Piedmont significantly above 50K, and Choctaw leading the way for East Metro). We can probably start talking about another pro-sports team in 2020, after years of success and a few championships from the NBA Thunder - OKC is a proven major-league (and university) level sports town.
2030 - 2,000,000 (I don't think 400K is out of the question, with OKC being a strong 900K-1M city with again, a very healthy core).

for CSA, just add 100K+ to the MSA

^^You think MWC will be about 100k in 2020?It's only 55k right now,thats only 9 years!Moore and Edmond is a different story!

I think Norman will reach 150K by 2020. Growth doesn't appear to be slowing down in that part of the metro.

2013 - 0. Don't you people know the world is ending next year??

2013 - 0. Don't you people know the world is ending next year??

Since when was anyone right over when the world was going to end.

^^You think MWC will be about 100k in 2020?It's only 55k right now,thats only 9 years!Moore and Edmond is a different story!

I suspect there will be a boom in MWC if they plan for it correctly, as there WILL be a very significant influx of employment to that area.

Midwest City land area is about 64 Km2 while Moore is about 56 and Edmond is about 221. Norman is about 458.

Midwest City land area is about 64 Km2 while Moore is about 56 and Edmond is about 221. Norman is about 458.

Norman is like OKC, massive land area with vast swaths of land that will never be developed. In Norman's case the land along the Canadian River floodplain to the south and west, the greenbelt along the Little River between Norman and Moore, and the huge area around Lake Thunderbird to the east. Most development and future development will be on the remaining land in north Norman not in the greenbelt and in east Norman west of 60th, and the area along Hwy 77 south of Hwy 9 between Norman and Noble. There is also a decent amount of residential infill going on in Norman in the OU campus area.

All local-level data has been released. For 2010, OKC is "officially" the 31st largest city in the United States, and the OKC MSA is the 44th largest.

http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn123.html

All local-level data has been released. For 2010, OKC is "officially" the 31st largest city in the United States, and the OKC MSA is the 44th largest.

http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn123.html

We're now 2 spots lower than in the 2000 census, but really only one city (Las Vegas, and they've shot past more than 30 cities in the last decade) has passed us. The other (Louisville) simply changed the way they count city residents, resulting in a huge number jump for Louisville proper. Glancing at growth patterns for the past 20 years, and assuming those patterns might stay consistent for the next decade (admittedly a big assumption), I think OKC is poised to move up substantially by the 2020 census. There are few cities behind us (to me, Albuquerque looks like the only real threat at this point) who could pass us, but there appear to be several ahead of us that we might catch in the next 10 years. Milwaukee, Washington, D.C., Baltimore, Memphis, and possibly even Denver, Nashville, Louisville, and Detroit could be reachable. Hard to believe how rapidly Detroit's numbers are dropping now. OKC's growth is not spectacular, but is quite solid. It should be fun to observe changes over the next decade. I'd love to see us climb up into that top 25 city population range.

Very cool interactive map from the New York Times that graphically shows how populations have changed over the past 10 years, all the way down to census tract.

Mapping the 2010 US Census
http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map

Another interesting link...

http://www.s4.brown.edu/us2010/segregation2010/Default.aspx?msa=36420

This site breaks down changes in MSA and city populations by race and ethnicity, so for example, you can see that for the OKC MSA:

Total MSA population change from 2000 to 2010: 157,566
Change in non-Hispanic white population: 40,283
Change in black population: 24,138
Change in Hispanic population: 68,789
Change in Asian population: 11,040

For the city of Oklahoma City,
Total population change from 2000 to 2010: 73,867
Change in non-Hispanic white population: 1,357
Change in black population: 13,663
Change in Hispanic population: 48,670
Change in Asian population: 7,022

Like the majority of mid-sized and large cities in the country, in OKC, Hispanics accounted for the largest portion of the city and MSA growth over the past decade. Hispanics are now the largest minority group in the city and, if current growth rates continue, will very soon be the largest in the MSA as well.

I'm not really concerned about any minority being in ascendance over others, but I would appreciate it if that minority spoke English. In my business, communication is incredibly important, and sometimes small details are key. Having to work with a translator impairs my ability to do my job well. Doing my job poorly can have devastating consequences, and that is a problem for which I see no solution.

very interesting minority gains in the central city and the relative 'lack' of white growth.

Also, Very good to see the Asian numbers start to pick up too.

I suspect there will be significant gains for the next several years as things come on-line. Interesting times, indeed.

Cultures clash as Oklahoma's Hispanic population nearly doubles from The 2000 Census! http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/04/05/oklahoma.latino.native/

I was told a couple of years ago by a latino business man that there were tens of thousands latinos in OK. that did not fill out the census report in 2000. This is pretty well known in the latino community and I don't know if changed during this latest census. It's very possible that OKCs metro pop. would add another 50-100k if all latinos were able to be counted. There' are so many that get paid in cash or don't have a real SS # it's impossible to count.

I was told a couple of years ago by a latino business man that there were tens of thousands latinos in OK. that did not fill out the census report in 2000. This is pretty well known in the latino community and I don't know if changed during this latest census. It's very possible that OKCs metro pop. would add another 50-100k if all latinos were able to be counted. There' are so many that get paid in cash or don't have a real SS # it's impossible to count.

100k Latino people missed in greater OKC? Yeah, right.

The Hispanic undercount rate was estimated by the Census Bureau to be roughly 3 percent nationally and, in the absolute hardest-to-count areas (e.g., towns and colonias along the Mexico-Texas border), probably no more than 8 percent (http://blogs.chron.com/texaspolitics/archives/2011/04/mexican_america.html). Given that the OKC MSA had 142,000 Hispanics in the 2010 Census, this suggests that--at worst--there's probably no more than 12k Hispanic people that were missed.

Now, 100k or more Hispanic people may have been missed in, say, Houston--but they also have 2.1 million Hispanics in their MSA.

That is what I was told by a litino business man. Did you know that there are thousands of latinos that make their home in OK in the spring and summer and leave during the winter months when the work slows down? I think there's many more that aren't counted than you think there is. I don't buy the 3% nationwide for a second. The US Gov. has no clue as to how many are in this country illegally.

He told me that when the census came by in 2k that only a small percentage filled out the paperwork. They were afraid to fill it out because many of the legals have illegal family and friends that live with them. When OK came down with the stricter laws there were thousands that fled and most of them have slowly filtered back in.

Here is an interesting look at the new census and population growth vs. productivity growth.

The State Story: Growth Without Growth
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/04/the-state-story-growth-without-growth/73367/#bio

A booming population might be a sign that people want to live in a place -- But population growth alone does not suffice to make a state an economic "winner."

Oklahoma wasn't a top state in population growth such as Nevada, Texas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, North and South Carolina, but Oklahoma was a top 5 state in productivity growth.

Meaning if you are adding people and not growing your economy, what good are you really doing?

None of the states mentioned above grew their economy, some are at the very bottom of economic conditions (Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, Texas, N. Carolina)

That is what I was told by a litino business man. Did you know that there are thousands of latinos that make their home in OK in the spring and summer and leave during the winter months when the work slows down? I think there's many more that aren't counted than you think there is. I don't buy the 3% nationwide for a second. The US Gov. has no clue as to how many are in this country illegally.

Since when is a "litino business man" a reliable source about population data?

To be sure, I know that some fraction of the illegal immigrant population is seasonal for employment reasons. And of course the Census Bureau has a "clue" about these people--a quite good one, in fact, based on things like utilities usage, school enrollment, housing occupancy, etc. ILlegal immigrants may not fill out forms or answer the door but they do use electricity and other utilities and often enroll their children in public schools. If anything, the way the Bureau estimates the population is probably more accurate than a simple headcount nowadays, and their estimates were pretty much right on for OKC.

One thing is for sure: the Census Bureau isn't so inept that they'd miss 100k people of one race out of a metropolitan area of 1.2 million.

I honestly would think that a 'latino business man' might actually ahve better insight into the local latino community than the census bureau or any local/state agency since the state seems hell bent on classifying any latino person as illegal 'first'. All one has to do is visit a local restaurant in the southside of OKC and have the police or INS pay a visit - and watch the scramble; illegal or not.

Last I checked, utility bills dont ask for housing count and many immigrants may not send their kids to public schools (instead, using the local community system). ... It is also quite easy for someone 'in the know' to help those who arent - and quite easy for those numbers to be 'lost' if said residents refuse to identify.

I find it very easy to believe latinos are undercounted in OKC, probably moreso than in Texas given OK's extremely conservative/hostile policy posture toward latinos. Maybe not 100K or maybe even more - but I certainly would believe a local community business man who probably might employ people who express reservations to him about identification than the census who have their arms full even identifying the correct race/nationality of a person to begin with. ...

I honestly would think that a 'latino business man' might actually ahve better insight into the local latino community than the census bureau or any local/state agency since the state seems hell bent on classifying any latino person as illegal 'first'. All one has to do is visit a local restaurant in the southside of OKC and have the police or INS pay a visit - and watch the scramble; illegal or not.

Last I checked, utility bills dont ask for housing count and many immigrants may not send their kids to public schools (instead, using the local community system). ... It is also quite easy for someone 'in the know' to help those who arent - and quite easy for those numbers to be 'lost' if said residents refuse to identify.

I find it very easy to believe latinos are undercounted in OKC, probably moreso than in Texas given OK's extremely conservative/hostile policy posture toward latinos. Maybe not 100K or maybe even more - but I certainly would believe a local community business man who probably might employ people who express reservations to him about identification than the census who have their arms full even identifying the correct race/nationality of a person to begin with. ...

Regardless of who you "believe" or how you might rationalize a possible undercount of 100k, it's still an outrageous notion in this context, no matter who proposed it. You can be absolutely SURE that given OKC's low density and population, the undercount was not that high--period.

Tens of thousands missed over the entire state? You betcha. 100k just in OKC? GMAFB.

I can't name names on here but this is a pretty well known latino business man telling me this. He said somewhere between 50-100k in the OKC area were missed. This guy has ties all over the latino community and he has MUCH better handle on this than the census people do. He said they just flooded out of the area several years ago and have been filtering back in since. These people are not counted by the census and there are 10s of thousands of them. Believe what you will semisimple but I will take this guys word for it because he is in touch with the latino community in ways the census bureau never ever will be. The census bureau to many of these people are like the black plague and they will stay as far away from them as possible. I don't think you quite understand this semisimple.

I can't name names on here but this is a pretty well known latino business man telling me this. He said somewhere between 50-100k in the OKC area were missed. This guy has ties all over the latino community and he has MUCH better handle on this than the census people do. He said they just flooded out of the area several years ago and have been filtering back in since. These people are not counted by the census and there are 10s of thousands of them. Believe what you will semisimple but I will take this guys word for it because he is in touch with the latino community in ways the census bureau never ever will be. The census bureau to many of these people are like the black plague and they will stay as far away from them as possible. I don't think you quite understand this semisimple.

Of course I understand perfectly well what you are saying. What you don't seem to understand is just how outrageous that suggestion is.

Consider the sheer magnitude of the error in a 100k undercount of people of just one ethnicity in a metropolitan area of only 1.2 million people (most of whom, presumably, would be clustered a city of just 580,000)--for the entire MSA alone you're talking 8% undercount, already about as high as has ever been estimated for any count anywhere.

Let's put this suggestion into further perspective. On the inner south side, in the loop between the river/I-44/I-35/I-240, the 2010 Census counted about ~80,000 people. Given how Hispanics are largely concentrated in this area of OKC--and it is, undeniably their cultural center of the city--the Latino businessman is thus suggesting that as many as half, if not more, of the people in this loop were missed.

This suggestion is even at odds with just simple observation--that area, as of late 2009 when I was there last, looked nothing like the parts of "urban" Texas that have truly hit a critical mass of illegal/undocumented immigrant workers. There are not enough converted garages and houses to hide another 50, 80, or certainly 100k people.

I'm not denying that the businessman is in touch with the Latino community and has seen, first hand, the ebb and flow of immigrants from across the border. What I am taking issue with is his ability to make accurate, informed judgments of the size of a subset of the population, particularly when they disagree with statistics and experience.

I can't name names on here but this is a pretty well known latino business man telling me this. He said somewhere between 50-100k in the OKC area were missed. This guy has ties all over the latino community and he has MUCH better handle on this than the census people do. He said they just flooded out of the area several years ago and have been filtering back in since. These people are not counted by the census and there are 10s of thousands of them. Believe what you will semisimple but I will take this guys word for it because he is in touch with the latino community in ways the census bureau never ever will be. The census bureau to many of these people are like the black plague and they will stay as far away from them as possible. I don't think you quite understand this semisimple.

If this man is legal, then why is he not helping the government to flush all of these aliens out? :-(

semisimple,you keep posting that 100k number as if the man said 100k wasn't counted. He said between 50-100k. That is a large difference. I have a group of 5 latinos that come and do yard work in my area. I can tell you for a fact that only 1 of them is legal. I went to check a home where a latino family was living. 2 adults and 2 children. Guess what? There were 4 others living there that wasn't supposed to be there. Family members visiting,uh huh.This is very common,more than you can imagine and it's not just on the south side of the city. I see it on a daily basis so I am a little more in tune that most people on this subject.When that person told me that 50-100k number I was not shocked at all. Like I said,believe what you will.

I can't name names on here but this is a pretty well known latino business man telling me this. He said somewhere between 50-100k in the OKC area were missed. This guy has ties all over the latino community and he has MUCH better handle on this than the census people do. He said they just flooded out of the area several years ago and have been filtering back in since. These people are not counted by the census and there are 10s of thousands of them. Believe what you will semisimple but I will take this guys word for it because he is in touch with the latino community in ways the census bureau never ever will be. The census bureau to many of these people are like the black plague and they will stay as far away from them as possible. I don't think you quite understand this semisimple.

I have to agree with semisimple. Just because someone is "in touch" with the latino community gives him no more ability to count noses than anyone else. That 100,000 figure is impossible and a fabrication at worst. The latino district would have to have probably at least an extra 100 uncounted people per residence to even approach that figure.

Isn't there a hidden Chinese population that is in some under ground part of the city?

I have heard stories about this before and it was from a Chinese man that could speak Chinese, so it must be true.

there was an underground Chinatown in downtown, where the Myriad exists today.

I have to agree with OKCLee. I have seen immigration in action, legal and illegal; and I can attest that in a state as hostile as Oklahoma, OKCLee's latino businessman friend's observation is similar to what I ahve seen. I have seen homes that had multiple families residing and it really isn't too difficult for you if you are willing to take the blinders off.

Does it make sense to you, that the inner southside of Oklahoma City ONLY has 80,000 residents??? This is an area, nearly equal in size to the better counted Inner North-Central; would you argue it has only 80,000 too?

It could be a few thousand undercounted, but 100,000? NO

there was an underground Chinatown in downtown, where the Myriad exists today.

I have to agree with OKCLee. I have seen immigration in action, legal and illegal; and I can attest that in a state as hostile as Oklahoma, OKCLee's latino businessman friend's observation is similar to what I ahve seen. I have seen homes that had multiple families residing and it really isn't too difficult for you if you are willing to take the blinders off.

Does it make sense to you, that the inner southside of Oklahoma City ONLY has 80,000 residents??? This is an area, nearly equal in size to the better counted Inner North-Central; would you argue it has only 80,000 too?

Don't take my word for it--feel free to get an exact figure (I estimated after about 2 minutes) by counting the populations in the census tracts on this map: http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map?hp.

Edit: southside inner loop total is 86,253; northside inner loop total is 57,932. Who would've thought that areas composed of largely single-family homes on large lots tend to be low density?

Statistics generally make a pretty strong "argument" except for those with an unsubstantiated skepticism like yourself. I know, I know--the data says 80k, but you've "seen homes that had multiple families" and so it must be closer to 200k.

I hope you guys have started an e-mail campaign to inform the Bureau that your limited observations and some hearsay suggest that many dozens of census tracts had undercounts of over 50%. Just when you thought the undercounted Detroit...

You guys are patently ridiculous. Homerism is getting the best of HOT ROD and possibly others, too.

There are some very naive people on this thread. Some are like sheep being led to the slaughter.

Just remember that the census is counting legals and they are not even counting all of them.

I could easily see 50k not being counted and that is a conservative number IMO. Of course I see it on a daily basis whereas some people here don't have a clue so they can not even imagine that there could be that many. I understand.

There are some very naive people on this thread. Some are like sheep being led to the slaughter.

Just remember that the census is counting legals and they are not even counting all of them.

I could easily see 50k not being counted and that is a conservative number IMO. Of course I see it on a daily basis whereas some people here don't have a clue so they can not even imagine that there could be that many. I understand.

Being naive has nothing at all to do with it. In spite of what you see on a daily basis, what you're inferring is just not physically possible without having all of the houses bursting at the seams. And keep in mind that even with the large latino population they certainly do make up every household. It's just patently illogical. I'm sure you will continue to believe what you want and that is your right but, it the end, it won't matter in the least.

again lj and semi; I've seen it.

to get an idea, instead of looking online at census tracks, go there for yourself. You WILL see houses bursting at the seams.

Im not displaying any homerism (if I were, it would be Seattle) but I do know for fact that latinos are undercounted in conservative states (like Oklahoma City in particular) and I am very aware from growing up in OKC that there is a rather HUGE immigrant population that hides under the shadows - that many typical residents would not even believe is OKC.

Official statistics is one thing - seeing with your own eyes (having friends who know people, going to their house.....) and hearing a local businessman in the community state it; Im more willing to agree with OKCLee. Give it a try, go down on a basic normal day and drive through the southside. Sure looks like more than 80,000 (I'd say, it's more like 80,000 latinos alone + the other people who live down there).

Also, the inner north central of OKC has a lot of multifamily housing (relatively speaking to the rest of the city); so I have trouble with the 57,000 number without knowing the boundaries. I believe there are some census tracks in the inner north central that have over 30,000 (from the 2000 census), you'd have to imagine there would be more there now.

If I had to guess, I would say the inner northside (I-44/I-235/I-40) should probably be at least 110,000 considering it is the most urban/dense part of OKC and the southside (I-44/I-40/I-35/I-240) would be (counting everyone) at least 100,000, the Eastside would add another 35,000. ....

And whoever thinks that the latino pop. is only south of 1-40 to 2-40 & Broadway to May doesn't have a clue.

You guys must not realize how utterly ridiculous it sounds to form estimates of the population based on your day-to-day observations. The fact that you guys continue to offer this up is both humorous and yet a bit concerning.

HOT ROD, don't take my word on the population figures for the inner loops--calculate them yourself, I gave you a link to all the data and it takes 2-3 minutes at most to tally the tracts up in Excel. If you guess 110,000 in the north inner loop based on your observation you'd be off by over 50,000; either you or the Census Bureau aren't very accurate. Perhaps I can preempt your response--"it's really somewhere in between," right?

OKCRT can call me "naive" and "clueless" and anything else that makes him/her feel better; I'm not the one offering up totally wild speculation and trying to pass it off as a meaningful estimate (and labeling those who don't blindly accept such baseless conjecture as "sheep").

By the way, when did I ever say that all the Hispanic population was in the inner south loop? Never--if you actually read what I wrote, I said they are largely concentrated there, thus implying they are also dispersed elsewhere in the city. FYI, generally it's essential to be able to read and comprehend someone's argument to effectively debase their position (of which either of you have yet to do in any meaningful sense).

Ah, to hell with painstakingly counting the population by mail and door-to-door enumeration; let's just plant HOT ROD and OKCRT in opposite corners of a given city and let them formulate "estimates" based on their day-to-day observations of people going about their business. We could get, evidently, more accurate population figures--and save taxpayers billions of dollars in the process. Win-win.