Started to get into this topic on another thread and I'm sure it's been discussed here before, but I'm new so please indulge me!


Yes, most cities have this problem but none to the extent of OKC. Yes, it is geographically huge but annexing hundreds of square miles of adjacent land is actually a great way for a city to control urban sprawl... You can keep a tight rein on how that land is used, which can be a good thing.

But, OKC has done just the opposite. The powers that be rubber stamp every single building permit that comes across their desks, which is a far different process than many cities employ. Typically, their are areas that are identified as priority areas for development and other areas are kept generally undeveloped until there is need.

Simply put, there have been way too many houses built considering the growth of the population.

Not only is urban sprawl ugly, it greatly dillutes the resources of the city and subtracts from the community feel. How connected do you think people that live at 150th & May feel to downtown OKC and all the other common resources that have to be developed and maintained for the greater good of the entire community?


I grew up in the Putnam City area in the 60's and 70's, which was the Edmond of it's time. Just a couple of decades later, the area has really gone downhill in much the same way that much of the OKC school district took a dive some time ago.

Most of the people I went to HS with (and their parents) now live in Edmond or far, far NW OKC. And why wouldn't they? Brand new houses being built by the hundreds and for the most part they are pretty reasonable.


But the consequence is that the city rots in concentric circles when you keep building further and further out. Why stay in an area that is aging? Just discard it and move on. Obviously, this is bad for the entire community but I can't blame individual home buyers.

I can blame, however, city leadership.

How can we make the city attractive with landscaping if we've spread 500,000 people over a huge area? How can we efficiently maintain roads and provide police and fire? You can we begin to approximate a community?


Is this issue even beind discussed among city leaders? If so, I haven't heard it mentioned.


I would also say the city has done a very poor job in terms of minimum landscape requirements, set-backs, etc.

Our city's suburbs are first class, and our city's urban core is revitalizing, there is no complaints from me, but as someone who lives at Hefner & Sara Road, I am happy that I have the option to live out here.

But, you are right in only one field. While the sprawl has helped keep costs of living low and purchasing parity high in Oklahoma, the grid system we have in the Sooner State really does not able us to have luch, green, beautiful suburbs, despite how first class they may be. Edmond is Relocation America and Universal Publication's #1 small town to live in, how about that!

As long as they combine suburbia and an urban district, than it is good. Look at houston, now that is a well planned city! But ahh... it is NOT planned, which is funny. Maybe we should get rid of zoning laws?

Your argument is invalid IMO. I am sure Metro and Midtowner will agree with you however.

Don't mean to say that things aren't going well in OKC but don't we all want them to be better?

It's a complex issue that is not easily resolved, especially since the genie is already out of the bottle in many ways.


But I take strong issue when you say our surburds are beautiful... There are beautiful parts -- primarily expensive residential additions.


But big chunks of Edmond are an eyesore, including 99% of Broadway. They've done a better job on the east side, but again only in some parts.

Northwest Expressway west of McArthur is also very unattractive.

99% of everything that is actually ON Broadway in Edmond is not an eyesore... it's just those FEW lower income areas by the new Mini dealer...

Don't mean to say that things aren't going well in OKC but don't we all want them to be better?

It's a complex issue that is not easily resolved, especially since the genie is already out of the bottle in many ways.


But I take strong issue when you say our surburds are beautiful... There are beautiful parts -- primarily expensive residential additions.


But big chunks of Edmond are an eyesore, including 99% of Broadway. They've done a better job on the east side, but again only in some parts.

Northwest Expressway west of McArthur is also very unattractive.

Edmond has done an excellent job concealing some of its poorer neighborhoods. There are many very small sub-1000 sq. ft. homes, section 8 apartments and trailer parks concealed in Edmond. You just have to know where they are. Take a look through the town sometime with Google's satellite imaging engine. You'll be surprised at what you find.

As for S&R's stated opinion that I would favor a more planned city, he's dead wrong. However, the advantages of a more planned and carefully zoned city are obvious. I recently read through some research done as to why OKC doesn't have a major league franchise, and our population density within our MSA was one of the concerns listed -- I understand that this aspect of our city is also limiting other development.

I can see both sides of the issue. At the end of the day, I prefer the city to have some sort of a plan, but not to force things. For what it's worth, I think the city manager/planning committee is/are doing a fine job of managing the city's growth.

Didn't a city manager recently resign over, at least in part, this issue?

Yes, most cities have this problem but none to the extent of OKC. Yes, it is geographically huge but annexing hundreds of square miles of adjacent land is actually a great way for a city to control urban sprawl... You can keep a tight rein on how that land is used, which can be a good thing.

But, OKC has done just the opposite. The powers that be rubber stamp every single building permit that comes across their desks, which is a far different process than many cities employ. Typically, their are areas that are identified as priority areas for development and other areas are kept generally undeveloped until there is need.

Incorrect. Travel to Houston and Phoenix. Sprawl in Houston is so bad the city is allowing heavy development outside their 500+ sq. miles city limit.


How can we make the city attractive with landscaping if we've spread 500,000 people over a huge area? How can we efficiently maintain roads and provide police and fire? You can we begin to approximate a community?

Again, incorrect. People are under the impression 500,000 people are spread out over the entire 608 sq. mile area. However, 98% of Oklahoma City's population is concentrated in a 240 sq. mile core known as urbanized area. The remaining 2% are scattered throughout the rest of the city area. Road maintenance, police and fire is where you are dead-on accurate. That is our real problem.


I would also say the city has done a very poor job in terms of minimum landscape requirements, set-backs, etc.

The minimum landscaping requirements were changed in early 2004 to adhere to heavier landscaping. The new requirements, however, apply to new developments and renewal developments.


Didn't a city manager recently resign over, at least in part, this issue?

I'm not sure if he was city manager, but yes, this person resigned over a controversial proposal to curb and restrict urban sprwal by introducing a new master plan that was balked at by local developers. This man had a good solid plan. Unfortunately, I cannot recall his name at this time.

Incorrect. Travel to Houston and Phoenix. Sprawl in Houston is so bad the city is allowing heavy development outside their 500+ sq. miles city limit.

Both cities have much larger and much denser populations than OKC. And even if they are worse (which I would debate) they are hardly the standards we should to which we should compare ourselves. IMO, both are awful, ugly places.


And 500K 'concentrated' in 240 square miles is still very thinly spread.

Do you have a source for that information?

I think another important issue for OKC is their lack of a land use plan. As it is right now, developers wanting to build residential in commercial zoning or any similar situation are pretty much SOL. The likelyness of getting the zoning changed is slim to none. In Edmond a land use plan has been developed, and in theory, really lets the citizens of the city decide where they want developments to go. This was not the case however, with the new wal-mart supercenter being built on I-35, which met heavy opposition and still passed. But at least it gives residents a chance to get more involved, and gives developers more options. But OKC shouldnt feel too bad, Dalls does not have a land use plan either, although Ft. Worth does. i think there is a visable difference between the cities that do and dont implement a land use plan IMO. I don't know what more to say. Any opinions on this? I got most of my information here from Edmonds' Ward 4 councilman David Miller just FYI.

According to the following link, OKC is 197th out of the top 200 cities in terms of population density:

http://www.demographia.com/db-us90city100kdens.htm


And yes, I'm aware that takes into account the entire number of square miles, but statistics for entire MSA's show the same type of ranking:

http://www.ewgateway.org/pdffiles/newsletters/gtrends/WWS0105-Extra.pdf

If you look at the article, it clearly shows how they count MSA population. It's the total population of the primary and surrounding counties which make up the total. All of the other cities are counted just like OKC. I noticed that OKC is #34 on the 2000 list which means that we are the 34th largest in the country. Population density means nothing when they count the overall number of people in a particular region. I think OKC stacks up pretty well. Plus, I'm sure we've had a substantial increase since the census.

If you look at the article, it clearly shows how they count MSA population. It's the total population of the primary and surrounding counties which make up the total. All of the other cities are counted just like OKC. I noticed that OKC is #34 on the 2000 list which means that we are the 34th largest in the country. Population density means nothing when they count the overall number of people in a particular region. I think OKC stacks up pretty well. Plus, I'm sure we've had a substantial increase since the census.

Actually, the official stats place Oklahoma City number 29.

Was that for the city or MSA? I was referring to the MSA. Basically what the statistics reveal is that we are a large metro region, not just in land area.

Was that for the city or MSA? I was referring to the MSA. Basically what the statistics reveal is that we are a large metro region, not just in land area.

That was metro. Proper Oklahoma City is number 45.

Here's a good article on this subject from our friend Steve Lackmeyer:



Housing growth, blight sparks council debate
3/24/04
By Steve Lackmeyer Staff Writer


Continued housing growth along Oklahoma City’s fringe and spreading inner-city blight sparked debate Tuesday among city council members and a suggestion that the city’s master plan be revised.
Council members attending a workshop at the Cox Convention Center looked at new studies showing innercity blight is spreading north and south, while new housing is continuing to explode along the northern, southern and western fringes.
They also were advised more sprawl will follow a planned extension of the Kilpatrick Turnpike.
In the west corridor adjoining Mustang, housing construction has averaged 613 units a year.
Other fringe areas have experienced similar growth, with 940 units being built a year in far south Oklahoma City and 669 in far north areas.
Planning Director John Dugan reported inner-city blight, meanwhile, has expanded beyond the traditional borders of Interstates 35 and 44.
Critics of urban sprawl believe that these problems persist because the last comprehensive plan was watered down by developers and council allies. The plan followed two years of meetings and studies.
Planning Commissioner Nick Gales was among those attending Tuesday’s workshop who argued the plan needs to be amended.
He said a study of far west Oklahoma City shows that areas approved for development have yet to be built up, while construction has occurred in other areas not intended for development in the master plan.
“We have a huge amount of area in this city, and we don’t have the economic resources to do everything from roads to police and fire (protection),” Gales said.
“We have 300 years of developable land. We’re not in a position to service all those areas, and that’s the challenge.”
Ward 6 Councilwoman Ann Simank was the most vocal in demanding a revisit to the master plan. She warned fellow council members that inner-city blight is spreading as far south as SW 74 and north to NW 63.
Ward 5 Councilman Jerry Foshee responded that antisprawl measures attempted by other cities would only cause local developers to build in surrounding neighborhoods.
Council members did agree Tuesday to consider looking at rental housing and absentee property owners, and possibly requiring zoning applications to include analyses of city service costs.
Foshee and Ward 8 Councilman Guy Liebmann both argued the city should not consider laws found in other cities that require developers to pay for expansion of utilities and roads or that prohibit development in areas where infrastructure or services are lacking.
Housing developer David Yost asked council members to cite one cost to the city associated with his rural Apple Valley addition along Hefner and Air Depot Boulevard.
“I don’t see what we’ve done to have this huge impact on costs,” Yost said.
“There have been no fire stations built because of us. We have the same roads.”
Simank responded that cost-analysis studies would help assess the effect. She said costs tied to sprawl include the continued growth of blight in older neighborhoods.
Liebmann reminded Simank that new development, including big-box stores built recently near Memorial Road and Pennsylvania Avenue, are pumping new sales tax money into the city’s budget.

I believe the ranking of 45th is the TV Market. I do know that the city proper is ranked higher. According to the link above for MSA'S, OKC is 34th. I agree that the vast majority of our population is concentrated in the urbanized area, specifically Cleveland, Oklahoma, and Canadian counties.

I believe the ranking of 45th is the TV Market. I do know that the city proper is ranked higher. According to the link above for MSA'S, OKC is 34th. I agree that the vast majority of our population is concentrated in the urbanized area, specifically Cleveland, Oklahoma, and Canadian counties.

If you are refering to metro being 34, I DO like that figure, however, every official stat I have seen shows 45. Yes. That includes the television market.

Personally I think if gasoline prices continue to rise, urban sprawl will be limited somewhat.

One solution to urban sprawl might be for the city to start limiting building permits in outlying areas. Issuing building permits for residential units on the fringes of the city expands the city's infrastructure and thus requires more dollars to maintain it.

If you limit building permits on the fringes, it forces developers to consider building in the inner city areas. Some may argue that limiting building permits will simply cause developers to leave. I don't agree. The demand for housing will still be there as citizens are looking for places to live. If homes aren't available for purchase on the fringes, it will force them to either consider moving into reviving inner city areas, or to the suburbs, where infrastructure upkeep becomes the suburb's concern, not the city's.

Also, stiffer code enforcement prevents deterioration of inner city neighborhoods.

Some in Tulsa complain because the Tulsa proper isn't very large and they're missing out on a lot of sales tax revenue. But, at the same time, they're not having to maintain as much infrastructure.

Isnt OKC in the upper 20s for city ranking (like 26 or something?). Also, I thought the MSA was 42 in 2000. I know the tv market is usually 46 but hopefully that will change. I wish we could get more cable/satt subscriptions in the metro as well as Western and Southern OK.

Then the tv market will be more like everyone elses. Portland has a tv market much larger than its pop or metro area. Well, that is because the whole state of OR and SW Washington is considered Portland's tv market!!!