Me and a co-worker were talking about where Oklahoma City will grow next. Moore has definitely seen a boom in the last 5 years, or so and despite the tornados I think Moore will continue its growth. But where is the next major growth spurt in the metro? In our opinion after a brief discussion, we both agree that the Piedmont area will be the next "Boom" for the city. Northwest Expressway will extend its businesses and its neighborhoods far west past the turnpike and I believe in the next 5-10 years most of you wont even recognize Piedmont. Piedmont will just be just another suburb surrounded by Oklahoma City. What do you guys think, any other areas you guys see as the next suburban boom...............

East Edmond / Jones.

I think the Deer Creek area. After they get 74 or 77 (whatever it is) completed, you will see it all fill in.

East Edmond / Jones.

I agree. While Piedmont will continue to grow, it has already been the "next hot spot".

East Edmond / Arcadia, Jones, Luther areas.

What about Del City, Midwest City, and SE OKC? With all the jobs being added out at tinker I would expect to see growth out that way, especially along I-240.

Sprawl sprawl sprawl.

Mustang/Yukon area. Mustang high school will likely become the largest high school in the metro in a few years.

Sprawl sprawl sprawl.

Yep. Makes me sick to think about.

I would second Piedmont. I can see the Northwest Expressway corridor filling in, although its going to take more than 5-10 years. Same goes for the areas west of 74. There's still quite a bit of land out that way.

Yeah, when 74 is done the north will grow even more.

However, in the next 5-10 years I expect to see more people find ways to develop in the core of the City. Suburb areas will continue to grow, but I bet the growth rate slows.

Sprawl sprawl sprawl.


Waah waah waah

It will be interesting to see whether millennials, the demographic currently driving downtown's growth, choose to stay downtown when they have school-aged kids. Schools are a huge reason people choose the suburbs. We could see some significant suburban growth if current twentysomethings move to the suburbs in their thirties.

It will be interesting to see whether millennials, the demographic currently driving downtown's growth, choose to stay downtown when they have school-aged kids. Schools are a huge reason people choose the suburbs. We could see some significant suburban growth if current twentysomethings move to the suburbs in their thirties.

With enough population downtown, we should be able to get good schools in the area.

With enough population downtown, we should be able to get good schools in the area.

Agreed. OKC could be a pioneer as somewhere that offers family-friendly urban living. I'm not that familiar with OKCPS but I do know many inner city school districts are so far gone such a turnaround would not be possible.

It will be interesting to see whether millennials, the demographic currently driving downtown's growth, choose to stay downtown when they have school-aged kids. Schools are a huge reason people choose the suburbs. We could see some significant suburban growth if current twentysomethings move to the suburbs in their thirties.

Are under-30s really what's driving downtown's growth? I know there are quite a few, but it's not inexpensive to live downtown. I would guess, and I have zero proof, that less than 1% of the Millennials around here live downtown. I'm not sure it's a matter of them choosing to stay as it is them making the move to downtown in the first place. I hope it happens en masse and there are affordable options for that to happen.

I would go with Piedmont and the East Edmond area as suburban boomspots.

With MAPS for Kids its not the physical schools that are the failure. Its the lack of wanting to focus on education and the strength of the teachers at the schools to implement it. I think the block scheduling will and is helping and I've heard that schools like Capitol Hill are having huge turn arounds so its a work in progress.

It all comes down to family dynamics and kids activities outside of school that determine the path in which they go down.

Oh...and on topic...Mustang.

Are under-30s really what's driving downtown's growth? I know there are quite a few, but it's not inexpensive to live downtown. I would guess, and I have zero proof, that less than 1% of the Millennials around here live downtown. I'm not sure it's a matter of them choosing to stay as it is them making the move to downtown in the first place. I hope it happens en masse and there are affordable options for that to happen.

I would go with Piedmont and the East Edmond area as suburban boomspots.

My guess is that most with an urban mindset, while they may not live downtown, live in the inner core i.e. south of 63rd. Young people in the suburbs, from my observation, seem to be the ones who get married and have their first child by the age of 22, something much more common in OKC than most other places I've lived. Right now downtown isn't even on the radar for that segment of the population. With enough housing options and good schools, it may someday be.

The great gap: Disparity in rent, land prices challenges downtown OKC housing developers | The Journal Record (http://journalrecord.com/2013/06/07/the-great-gap-disparity-in-rent-land-prices-challenge-downtown-housing-developers-real-estate/)

Here's the lead in front of the paywall: In a state that's rooted in the quest for land, there is a large gap between the price of land for multifamily residential development and the price of rent for those spaces in the downtown area.

Whether you're buying or selling, real estate costs more in the CBD, less in outlying areas. I didn't read the story but I suspect that it portends a bubble in the downtown area, and a shake-out in the near future.

Sprawl sprawl sprawl.I don't think this is bad sprawl, it is good to see OKC growing.

I'm thinking the big places are going to be East Edmond, Jones, Piedmont, and the Yukon-Mustang area. These are the main ones, imo. As far as a population boom is concerned, I'm really thinking Yukon-Mustang.

Norman seems to be growing rapidly along with Moore and I think Deer Creek will boom up soon.

Sprawl sprawl sprawl.

That phrase made me put the Andrea True song to it. RadMod, you need to write the words to this.

Are under-30s really what's driving downtown's growth? I know there are quite a few, but it's not inexpensive to live downtown. I would guess, and I have zero proof, that less than 1% of the Millennials around here live downtown. I'm not sure it's a matter of them choosing to stay as it is them making the move to downtown in the first place. I hope it happens en masse and there are affordable options for that to happen.

I would go with Piedmont and the East Edmond area as suburban boomspots.

No. Millions of dollars of the government spending tax dollars collected in the burbs, in downtown, is what is driving downtown growth. Period. It will be decades before you can attribute downtown growth to anything other than that, if ever.

I'm doing some work in Mustang recently. Totally amazed at how much it's filled in and grown since the last time I was there.

Are under-30s really what's driving downtown's growth? I know there are quite a few, but it's not inexpensive to live downtown. I would guess, and I have zero proof, that less than 1% of the Millennials around here live downtown. I'm not sure it's a matter of them choosing to stay as it is them making the move to downtown in the first place. I hope it happens en masse and there are affordable options for that to happen.

I would go with Piedmont and the East Edmond area as suburban boomspots.

Focusing on downtown housing ignores other places millennials are choosing to live that still reflect a change in thinking: Gatewood, Linwood, Jefferson Park and other closer in neighborhoods. These allow them to take advantage of what downtown and its surrounds have to offer, while offering a price break over the for sale downtown housing. I work with a lot of young professionals, and very few of them are living in the suburbs or have any plans to do so for the foreseeable future. If parental involvement is the primary key to school improvement, they will create the rising tide. In other cities, my children are eschewing the suburbs and buying near downtown, and again, the schools are improving as others do the same. While there are undoubtedly suburban millennials, I see the tide shifting from the choices made by my generation. Mass transit has figured prominently in my children's housing choices as well.

My guess is that most with an urban mindset, while they may not live downtown, live in the inner core i.e. south of 63rd. Young people in the suburbs, from my observation, seem to be the ones who get married and have their first child by the age of 22, something much more common in OKC than most other places I've lived. Right now downtown isn't even on the radar for that segment of the population. With enough housing options and good schools, it may someday be.

Yes, a lot of people under 30 are staying the "inner loop" area if they are not moving downtown. I have quite a few friends who have bought in this area. A lot of intown neighborhoods are now topping $125-150 sq/ft. I'm 27, and trust me nobody I know has ever brought up living in Mustang LOL. With all respect to the good people of Mustang, of course.

People tend to ignore the significant demographic changes that are occurring. People are waiting longer to get married, then waiting even longer to have kids (if at all), and they are having fewer. People are also waiting longer to buy their own place. And yes, these changes are happening even in conservative OKC. So there's less pressure to bail to the suburbs.

Something else. I recently read in the Journal Record that nearly 9 percent of the population in OKC has expressed interest in living in a condo or townhouse, yet they make up about 1 percent of housing stock. No surprise since households are getting smaller. Yet builders here are still cranking out 3,000 sq ft Goliaths. It would be nice if you could get some decent multifamily development, even out in the suburbs, but the next best thing is the smaller bungalow neighborhoods in inner OKC.

IMO suburbs with good schools and are easily accessible to white collar employment centers will always be in demand, but don't assume people will automatically march out to them like they use to in the past.

Focusing on downtown housing ignores other places millennials are choosing to live that still reflect a change in thinking: Gatewood, Linwood, Jefferson Park and other closer in neighborhoods. These allow them to take advantage of what downtown and its surrounds have to offer, while offering a price break over the for sale downtown housing. I work with a lot of young professionals, and very few of them are living in the suburbs or have any plans to do so for the foreseeable future. If parental involvement is the primary key to school improvement, they will create the rising tide. In other cities, my children are eschewing the suburbs and buying near downtown, and again, the schools are improving as others do the same. While there are undoubtedly suburban millennials, I see the tide shifting from the choices made by my generation. Mass transit has figured prominently in my children's housing choices as well.

I agree with this. My comment was directed to "downtown". Yes, to roll out the boundaries and include Linwood and the like then yes, I agree completely.

Anyone who thinks the future lies with additional sprawl isn't paying attention to the national trends in housing, transportation, federal/state spending, and the family unit. However, if your sense of history starts with 1982 I can understand why you think urban sprawl is 'normal' and is the default setting for growth.

I don't think this is bad sprawl, it is good to see OKC growing.

Then what is bad sprawl?

Anyone who thinks the future lies with additional sprawl isn't paying attention to the national trends in housing, transportation, federal/state spending, and the family unit.

Eventually the bubble will pop here and people will start pointing fingers when they should be looking in the mirror. There is still way too much land inside the Kilpatrick - I-35 northern Loop section to develop to start pushing beyond it. Even more room on the South side of the Metro area as well. People need to pull up Google Earth once and again to remind themselves of just how much open land there is inside the main highway borders.

I'm thinking the big places are going to be East Edmond, Jones, Piedmont, and the Yukon-Mustang area. These are the main ones, imo. As far as a population boom is concerned, I'm really thinking Yukon-Mustang.

Norman seems to be growing rapidly along with Moore and I think Deer Creek will boom up soon.

Sprawl is bad sprawl.

But if we must sprawl we should fill-in existing areas such as between Yukon and Mustang, between Moore and Norman, and between OKC and Edmond.

Arcadia-Jones sprawl can be easily prevented by just not adding any exits onto the Turner Turnpike.

Eventually the bubble will pop here and people will start pointing fingers when they should be looking in the mirror. There is still way too much land inside the Kilpatrick - I-35 northern Loop section to develop to start pushing beyond it. Even more room on the South side of the Metro area as well. People need to pull up Google Earth once and again to remind themselves of just how much open land there is inside the main highway borders.

Development tends to follow school district lines. People buy north of the Kilpatrick because that puts them in Edmond or Deer Creek school district or south of I-240 so they can be in Moore schools. I remember the question was asked on these boards several years ago about why there is so much undeveloped land in NE OKC, and I remember the answer being because that area lies entirely within OKC schools.

Development tends to follow school district lines. People buy north of the Kilpatrick because that puts them in Edmond or Deer Creek school district or south of I-240 so they can be in Moore schools. I remember the question was asked on these boards several years ago about why there is so much undeveloped land in NE OKC, and I remember the answer being because that area lies entirely within OKC schools.

Okay, so given this information, how can city planners best prepare for OKC's future?

What kind of developments produce the highest tax revenue?
What kind of developments produce the best quality of life?
What kind of developments overstretch our infrastructure?
Are there existing areas of OKC that are underdeveloped?
Are there areas where it makes bad financial sense for OKC to grow into?
What are the triggers for growth in these and other areas?
What policies can the city adopt to steer development?

The sad thing is, I don't think city planners are asking any of these questions. On the one hand we have people like JTF who rail against the suburbs. On the other hand you have people like Plutonic Panda who love the suburbs and can't wait for OKC to hit 1200 square miles. Shouldn't our city planners have solid information on this without resorting to listening to some random guy on the internet?

The other issue, shouldn't we improve our public schools so that people want to move here?

The other issue, shouldn't we improve our public schools so that people want to move here?

Bad teachers aren't deliberately hired for our "bad" schools. They come from the same pool of teachers as are hired at other schools. The wonderfulness of Edmond and Deer Creek schools is pretty much perception. People see higher test scores and other students who look like their children and they think it's a good school. Great test scores, to a great extent, have very little to do with teachers because most of the tests test aptitude as much as anything. If you have a gene pool of students who have successful parents, it's very likely they'll score well on tests. If you have a pool of students whose parents have difficulty holding down even the simplest job, many of those students will not perform well on tests. You can probably blame genetics and parental involvement as much as anything. You can't change genetics, but you can change parental involvement. So, any Oklahoma City school, if it has involved parents who are successful at what they do, will appear to be a good school. Wilson is a perfect example of that. People who 20 years ago might have sent their kids to private school are perfectly happy sending their children to Wilson. And because those parents are making that choice, their involvement in the school keeps lifting the perception of the school higher. Just like neighborhoods can be gentrified, so can schools. The good thing about schools is that it takes awhile for areas to completely gentrify and, as that happens, you hope that other parents learn by example and kids from less "advantaged" homes reap the benefits as well.

Sprawl is bad sprawl.

But if we must sprawl we should fill-in existing areas such as between Yukon and Mustang, between Moore and Norman, and between OKC and Edmond.

Arcadia-Jones sprawl can be easily prevented by just not adding any exits onto the Turner Turnpike.


I hope your right. I moved out to the Jones Arcadia area because I got tired of people all around me, the noise and the hubbub. If the areas you mention fill up first, that's fine by me. I like having room around me. But I can tell, in the 9 years I've been out here, the population has grown. When we moved out here, it was almost pitch dark at night. Now, you can see lights every direction.

Sprawl sprawl sprawl.

LOL, @ only 6 posts in.

Mustang/Yukon area. Mustang high school will likely become the largest high school in the metro in a few years.

It already is the largest HS in the metro. Fifth largest in the state.

Development tends to follow school district lines. People buy north of the Kilpatrick because that puts them in Edmond or Deer Creek school district or south of I-240 so they can be in Moore schools. I remember the question was asked on these boards several years ago about why there is so much undeveloped land in NE OKC, and I remember the answer being because that area lies entirely within OKC schools.

Oakdale schools are very good, which is why you see a lot of development along NE 122nd and Air Depot. Perhaps some school district boundaries could be moved.

Oakdale schools are very good, which is why you see a lot of development along NE 122nd and Air Depot. Perhaps some school district boundaries could be moved.

Oakdale ends at 8th grade and the kids feed into Edmond schools, which some people really find appealing.

Personally, I never, ever want to have that type of commute, so we are choosing to raise our kid(s) in the core and we'll do what we have to do for eduction. If it means we end up having to pay for private, we'll find a way. If we can help OKC public schools get better, we certainly will.

I don't think sprawl is bad. Some people like to get away from the city. I think city/community/state spending the supports/encourages sprawl is bad.

I've got a friend that lives just outside of Baltimore. So within what we'd consider "the metro". Her house is almost 100 years old, as are most of the houses in her neighborhood. Her road though, is unpaved. Her trash she runs down the street to a common dumpster that everyone in the area contributes/pays for. She picks up her mail from a post office (no house to house mail delivery). The fire department there is volunteer. When there is a blizzard, they're snowed in unless they hire a private plow to clear the roads.

If people want to live out away from folks, fine, but don't expect all the city services and luxuries.

Sprawl is bad sprawl.

But if we must sprawl we should fill-in existing areas such as between Yukon and Mustang, between Moore and Norman, and between OKC and Edmond.

Arcadia-Jones sprawl can be easily prevented by just not adding any exits onto the Turner Turnpike.I look at sprawl as people not wanting to live right up next to each other. i like wide open spaces and I'm sure Edmond was considered bad sprawl at one point or another. I think sprawl can be contained, however I enjoy suburbs scattered out through the metro in various locations, there is a limit though.

Sprawl is bad sprawl.

But if we must sprawl we should fill-in existing areas such as between Yukon and Mustang, between Moore and Norman, and between OKC and Edmond.

Arcadia-Jones sprawl can be easily prevented by just not adding any exits onto the Turner Turnpike.Also, I would love for this to happen, I just hope it isn't crappy, low quality development.

I look at sprawl as people not wanting to live right up next to each other. i like wide open spaces and I'm sure Edmond was considered bad sprawl at one point or another. I think sprawl can be contained, however I enjoy suburbs scattered out through the metro in various locations, there is a limit though.

A lot of people want that. In OKC, a lot of people seem to think they've "made it" when they can move out to the country, get away from everybody. But as time goes by, more people move out there with you. When 10 years ago the sky was pitch black and the only sound was crickets, now there are lights, and you can hear the high school band on Friday nights in the distance, etc. Before there was nothing out there, now you can get Dominos delivered to your door. So you have to keep moving farther out, and that is not a healthy pattern to maintain.

The city should focus on being a good city, not on making it easy for people to move to the country. I think if we develop a nice urban environment, a lot of people will decide that they have "made it" when they can live there instead.

I can believe Piedmont is booming. I've been looking at a few acreages in Piedmont. I'm looking for something in the 1-2 acre size and there are some really nice houses in my price range. Every one we have looked at now has a contract is otherwise spoken for. You gotta be quick!

A lot of people want that. In OKC, a lot of people seem to think they've "made it" when they can move out to the country, get away from everybody. But as time goes by, more people move out there with you. When 10 years ago the sky was pitch black and the only sound was crickets, now there are lights, and you can hear the high school band on Friday nights in the distance, etc. Before there was nothing out there, now you can get Dominos delivered to your door. So you have to keep moving farther out, and that is not a healthy pattern to maintain.

The city should focus on being a good city, not on making it easy for people to move to the country. I think if we develop a nice urban environment, a lot of people will decide that they have "made it" when they can live there instead.My question is, how many people consistently do that? I'm sure there are people that do, but I doubt it amounts to anything. (almost)Everyone I know have lived in one place for a very long time and the only people I really know that have moved, moved either because a. they moved in with their partner or b. ran into financial problems. I think that places like Piedmont, New Castle,, El Reno Guthrie(that is kind of a different story, but I'm sure eventually Guthrie will take off), and Arcadia/Jones is kind of pushing it, however "good sprawl" would be places like Edmond, Moore, Norman, Midwest City and maaaaaaaybe Yukon.

I love Deep Deuce and I really want to see the city focus it's efforts on the inner core, but I don't want to the rest to be completely neglected. I don't believe just because you live outside the city core, you should be denied services that you would otherwise get if you, in fact, lived deep in the city. I know I've stated I support a few new highways to lessen congestion(what we consider congestion to be lol), but if I had a choice, I would build a light-rail and a street car system throughout OKC in a heartbeat without a second thought.

My question is, how many people consistently do that? I'm sure there are people that do, but I doubt it amounts to anything. almost)Everyone I know have lived in one place for a very long time and the only people I really know that have moved, moved either because a. they moved in with their partner or b. ran into financial problems. I think that places like Piedmont, New Castle,, El Reno Guthrie(that is kind of a different story, but I'm sure eventually Guthrie will take off), and Arcadia/Jones is kind of pushing it, however "good sprawl" would be places like Edmond, Moore, Norman, Midwest City and maaaaaaaybe Yukon.

I love Deep Deuce and I really want to see the city focus it's efforts on the inner core, but I don't want to the rest to be completely neglected. I don't believe just because you live outside the city core, you should be denied services that you would otherwise get if you, in fact, lived deep in the city. I know I've stated I support a few new highways to lessen congestion(what we consider congestion to be lol), but if I had a choice, I would build a light-rail and a street car system throughout OKC in a heartbeat without a second thought.

A lot man. How do you think we got Mustang, Deer Creek, Edmond, Midwest City, Moore, Yukon? They were the far flung suburbs of the exact type that hoyasooner described before they become the suburbs people are moving past now.

I've got a friend that lives just outside of Baltimore. So within what we'd consider "the metro". Her house is almost 100 years old, as are most of the houses in her neighborhood. Her road though, is unpaved. Her trash she runs down the street to a common dumpster that everyone in the area contributes/pays for.

It's an unincorporated area. (There are literally no municipalities in Baltimore County, and Baltimore City is separate from the county.) County services are, let's say, highly variable across those 600 square miles.

A lot man. How do you think we got Mustang, Deer Creek, Edmond, Midwest City, Moore, Yukon? They were the far flung suburbs of the exact type that hoyasooner described before they become the suburbs people are moving past now.


Cue Carly Simon...

Edmond:

The Santa Fe rail line in Oklahoma Territory, established a water and coaling station for steam engines at this location when the Santa Fe Railroad built into Indian Territory in 1887. The site for the station was chosen because it was the highest point on the line in Oklahoma County; train could more easily accelerate going downhill while leaving the station in either direction. The railroad then named the station for Edmond Burdick, the Santa Fe’s traveling freight agent; when the town was formed after the Oklahoma Land Run of 1889, early settlers decided to adopt the name. Though most of the remnants of the old railroad infrastructure are gone, the Santa Fe, now BNSF, freight line still runs through the same course.[citation needed]

The town of Edmond sprang up overnight during the great Oklahoma land run on April 22, 1889, when homesteads were staked around the Santa Fe station. The original plat for Edmond was prepared by the Seminole Town and Development Company, a newly formed syndicate with ties to the railroad. Many of the original streets were named for men associated with either the Santa Fe Railroad or the town syndicate. The first mayor and city officers were elected in May 1889, and Edmond’s population was 394 in the 1890 census.

The first public schoolhouse in Oklahoma Territory, completed in August 1889, is in Edmond and still stands as a historic monument on 2nd Street between Boulevard and Broadway. It is open to the public the first two Saturdays of each month, or by appointment.

The first church opened after the land run, St. John the Baptist Catholic Church, was located on the southwest corner of East First and South Boulevard. The congregation still exists, although not in its original building or location.[6]

In December 1890, the Legislature established three universities: the state university in Norman, the agricultural and mechanical college in Stillwater, and a "normal" or teaching school in Edmond. The first classes for the Territorial Normal School (University of Central Oklahoma) were held November 9, 1891, in the Methodist Church on the southwest corner of North Broadway and West Hurd. Old North, the Territorial Normal School’s iconic first building, was opened for classes on January 2, 1893, and ahead of Oklahoma State University’s Central Hall or Oklahoma University's Science Hall.[7]

and so on...

This is going to sound a little corny and simplistic, but really, doesn't it just all come down to Different Strokes For Different Folks? Freedom! Choices!

This is going to sound a little corny and simplistic, but really, doesn't it just all come down to Different Strokes For Different Folks? Freedom! Choices!



EXACTLY! .... Thank You!

I live on a small acreage out "in the country", but it is still in Oklahoma City. I pay for Oklahoma City trash service, and pay Oklahoma City taxes. I'm sick of these folks who want to control what you do. If you folks want to live deep in the city,... great. Enjoy it! That's your right. I lived in the city all my life, and I grew tired people on top of me, sirens, boom booming stereos, police helicopters flying over at all hours, and just dealing with the denser population in general. So I got the hell out to quieter living, and I'm loving it. A house that's about 700 ft off the road, trees and wildlife... It's far enough out but not too far, and I can be at work in 20 minutes,

There are a lot of housing options between "living on top of each other" and "40 acres and a mule", but only one of those options is available in OKC in any meaningful amount and that is the BANANA (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything) auto-based single family home in a subdivision where even the walk to a backdoor neighbor requires a 1/2 mile trip on 2 cul-de-sacs and a collector road.

Rezman - the location you describe as your preferred residence is T2 on the rural to urban transect - and there is nothing wrong with that. The problem comes when T2 turns into unclassified urban sprawl.

http://www.transect.org/

Oklahoma City may have a sprawl problem - a major one in fact for a city its size. However, go to mid-sized cities in the Southeast like Little Rock, Knoxville, Columbia SC, etc and you'll see OKC actually has it pretty good. In the aforementioned cities, EVERYBODY wants to live in the country on acreage surrounded by trees, away from everything, and you had to live a long way from Little Rock to get it. When I lived in Little Rock, it was common for people who worked there to live two hours away. Getting from Benton to Cabot takes over an hour, but we are talking a metro area of only 700,000 people. At least OKC builds subdivisions mostly adjacent to existing subdivisions.

This is good discussion, particularly about the schools early in the thread. We currently live in a mid-urban (not sure how to classify it) area on the western edge of Lake Hefner. Sure, the folks inside the I-44/I-40/I-235 area might call me suburban, but we don't feel that way. We love where we live, but have considered moving at times (both towards downtown and out towards Piedmont).

With a soon to be 3 year old the school question is looming large. Do we move downtown and hope she gets into Rex, and hope the school is filled with kids who's parents give a damn? Do we stay here, tough out what people are telling us is a rotting PC school area (I don't see it)? Or do we make the great white flight (don't want it, and despite what she says now, I don't think my wife does either).

The Moore/Norman area has always seen fast growth, and boom. I don't forsee that letting up anytime soon. The things they are doing in Moore/Norman are phenomenal, and I expect Moore to bounce back better than ever, many companies and residents already committed to rebuild.

Every since I can remember Norman has been growing by about 1000 to 1500 people each year.
This is going to continue and we might as well make plans to accommodate Norman’s growth. It will make it a lot easier if we do.

This is good discussion, particularly about the schools early in the thread. We currently live in a mid-urban (not sure how to classify it) area on the western edge of Lake Hefner. Sure, the folks inside the I-44/I-40/I-235 area might call me suburban, but we don't feel that way. We love where we live, but have considered moving at times (both towards downtown and out towards Piedmont).

With a soon to be 3 year old the school question is looming large. Do we move downtown and hope she gets into Rex, and hope the school is filled with kids who's parents give a damn? Do we stay here, tough out what people are telling us is a rotting PC school area (I don't see it)? Or do we make the great white flight (don't want it, and despite what she says now, I don't think my wife does either).

I know this is a bit off topic (Full disclosure: I have no kids) but I have a lot of friends who are starting to have children and are in the same pickle. I went to one of the best and most affluent school districts in Texas. My parents stretched out their commutes and bought a smaller home just to get my sister and I in it. I got a great education. But in the time I was there, we had several high profile suicides and several heroin overdoses that killed a lot of kids. In my junior and senior year in HS, we had several kids drop out, get pregnant, become delinquents, etc.

My point is the difference between a good and a great school district is oftentimes based on family and student involvement, household stability, etc. things that schools can't necessarily control. Sure it has some challenges, but the tales of PC's demise are greatly exaggerated. The same people that talk about PC are probably the same ones now complaining about Edmond and Moore. Frankly, the area you live in (PC North) is probably fine since their is not a lot of apartments in that area compared to PCW and PCO's attendance zone. And I worry about places like Piedmont, which are growing rapidly but have surprisingly little tax base to fund themselves.

If you move to DT, you are guaranteed a spot in Rex so long as you live south of 10th. But yeah living outside of the attendance zone is very much a gamble. There are several great elementary schools that serve some of the more affluent neighborhoods, and I have a few friends that send their kids to these and have nothing but good things to say. Of course, its their education beyond that level where things start getting complicated. IMO, you should live where you are happy and let everything else sort itself out.

If you move to DT, you are guaranteed a spot in Rex so long as you live south of 10th. But yeah living outside of the attendance zone is very much a gamble. There are several great elementary schools that serve some of the more affluent neighborhoods, and I have a few friends that send their kids to these and have nothing but good things to say. Of course, its their education beyond that level where things start getting complicated. IMO, you should live where you are happy and let everything else sort itself out.
The new northern boundary for Rex has been moved up to 13th street now.

I know this is a bit off topic (Full disclosure: I have no kids) but I have a lot of friends who are starting to have children and are in the same pickle. I went to one of the best and most affluent school districts in Texas. My parents stretched out their commutes and bought a smaller home just to get my sister and I in it. I got a great education. But in the time I was there, we had several high profile suicides and several heroin overdoses that killed a lot of kids. In my junior and senior year in HS, we had several kids drop out, get pregnant, become delinquents, etc.

My point is the difference between a good and a great school district is oftentimes based on family and student involvement, household stability, etc. things that schools can't necessarily control. Sure it has some challenges, but the tales of PC's demise are greatly exaggerated. The same people that talk about PC are probably the same ones now complaining about Edmond and Moore. Frankly, the area you live in (PC North) is probably fine since their is not a lot of apartments in that area compared to PCW and PCO's attendance zone. And I worry about places like Piedmont, which are growing rapidly but have surprisingly little tax base to fund themselves.

If you move to DT, you are guaranteed a spot in Rex so long as you live south of 10th. But yeah living outside of the attendance zone is very much a gamble. There are several great elementary schools that serve some of the more affluent neighborhoods, and I have a few friends that send their kids to these and have nothing but good things to say. Of course, its their education beyond that level where things start getting complicated. IMO, you should live where you are happy and let everything else sort itself out.

I agree with you 100%. We have one of our friends who teaches at Hefner MS who said "I wouldn't send my kids there," but then we have other friends who have nothing but great things to say about the school and area (for one I think it's already past the growing pains that Edmond is beginning to experience now).

You're never going to find the perfect spot. I also went to a great school outside of Houston, but the schools weren't without their share of problems. As far as private school, don't even get me started with the issues some of those kids have (I know it's not all).

EXACTLY! .... Thank You!

I live on a small acreage out "in the country", but it is still in Oklahoma City. I pay for Oklahoma City trash service, and pay Oklahoma City taxes. I'm sick of these folks who want to control what you do. If you folks want to live deep in the city,... great. Enjoy it! That's your right. I lived in the city all my life, and I grew tired people on top of me, sirens, boom booming stereos, police helicopters flying over at all hours, and just dealing with the denser population in general. So I got the hell out to quieter living, and I'm loving it. A house that's about 700 ft off the road, trees and wildlife... It's far enough out but not too far, and I can be at work in 20 minutes,

I don't think the problem is living out "in the country" and out of town is a bad thing. My parents did the same thing, I probably will when able because I like having a real yard I can get creative with. The issue when talking of sprawl comes in when it is causing a disproportionate amount for the city to provide essentially services to that property versus one in a higher density setting.

Where my parents live (not down here) they are out in an unincorporated township. They pay for most city services (had city water ran out about 10 years back and no choice in the matter but to connect) with police service by the sheriff and a volunteer fire department. County covers EMS service as well as roads. They pay for this through property taxes since there aren't any local income tax in unincorporated areas there, but its definitely lower overall that living in city limits. Sure cities could go annex crazy and soak up all the townships, but they they would be in the same problem they are here.

Look at Norman. It is over 100 square miles - running from the river on one end to Pottawatomie County on the other. However, ask anyone where "East Norman" is and they typically say just the other side of the rail road tracks. When in actuality...that would be more so Central Norman and East Norman would be Lake Thunderbird. What that does is that it exposes Norman to have to provide services and cover costs for a large area where there is VERY LOW population density. Those of us in the populated core of the city are paying an unequal amount compared to those that are getting paved roads out to BFE.

venture, if you'd like some practice time, we could probably work a deal where you can come by and be creative with my yard until you get one of your own.
;)

venture, if you'd like some practice time, we could probably work a deal where you can come by and be creative with my yard until you get one of your own.
;)

LOL. Well I learn from my father...and that usually involves a backhoe and a bulldozer. Every time I visit they tend to have a new massive flower bed or marsh for the waterfowl. LOL