Population Growth for OKC

[G.Walker]

Just saw an article on USA Today that stated with the current trends, Oklahoma City will surpass Baltimore in population.

Based on these new numbers, we jumped Louisville and Portland, and closing in on Baltimore.

[Just the facts]

I would love to see OKC deannex a lot of that land.

I am not so sure about de-annexing any more as much as I am about making it off limits to development. One thing we know for sure, we don't have enough water to develop that land as single family homes.

[soonerguru]

Not to nitpick here, but it says OKC is 20.8%...basically 21% rounded.

Sorry I misread to be 21.8%.

[Rover]

Not really - that infrastructure was built in parallel with the growth of the city. OKC's growth pattern has been skewed tremendously toward low density inefficient development. That really isn't debatable.

There is a huge amount of the incorporated OKC which doesn't have streets and infrastructure already built. If OKC didn't encompass those areas, do you think there wouldn't be basic streets and highways outside of the "city" anyway?

[KayneMo]

Gasp! 610,613 people divided by 607 square miles means OKC finally has over 1,000 people/square mile!
1,006/sq mi to be more exact.

[Bunty]

2013 figures released. OKC at 610,613, a 1.8% increase from 2012 (10,934).

Tulsa at 398,121, a 1% increase (3,772). Norman is 3rd at 118,197.

2013 Population estimates for all Oklahoma towns here: Census rarity: Tulsa 2013 population change outpaces Broken Arrow - Tulsa World: Newshomepage2

Enid goes over 50,000.

[soonerfan_in_okc]

The diversity and cultural vibrancy in Portland is unmatched anywhere in the South except for maybe austin.

Except for Oklahoma City....


Portland diversity:

The census reported the city as 76.1% White (444,254 people), 7.1% Asian (41,448), 6.3% Black or African American (36,778), 1.0% Native American (5,838), 0.5% Pacific Islander (2,919), 4.7% belonging to two or more racial groups (24,437) and 5.0% from other races (28,987).[52] 9.4% were Hispanic or Latino, of any race (54,840). Whites not of Hispanic origin made up 72.2% of the total population.[52]

Oklahoma City diversity:

According to the 2010 U.S. Census, the racial composition of Oklahoma City was as follows:[52]

White American: 62.7% (56.7% Non-Hispanic Whites)
African American: 15.1%
Native American: 3.5%
Asian American: 4.0% (1.7% Vietnamese, 0.7% Indian, 0.4% Chinese, 0.2% Korean, 0.2% Filipino, 0.1% Japanese)
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander: 0.1%
Some other race: 9.4%
Two or more races: 5.2%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 17.2% (14.2% Mexican, 0.7% Guatemalan, 0.4% Puerto Rican, 0.2% Honduran, 0.1% Salvadoran)[53]

[dmoor82]

It's a very big stereotypical misconception that OKC is not diverse.

[Laramie]

2013 Population estimates for all Oklahoma towns here: Census rarity: Tulsa 2013 population change outpaces Broken Arrow - Tulsa World: Newshomepage2

Enid goes over 50,000.

Enid - 50,725

We won't know the accuracy of these figures until the 2020 census; however Oklahoma City continues to outpace Tulsa in city & metropolitan population figures; both cities experienced moderate and manageable growth:

City population figures
2013 Estimates:
Oklahoma City 610,613 Tulsa 398,121 difference: 212,492
2010 Corporate city population:
Oklahoma City 579,999 Tulsa 391,906 difference: 188,093

Metropolitan population figures
2013 Estimates
Oklahoma City 1,319,677 Tulsa 961,561 difference: 358,116
2010 Metropolitan population
Oklahoma City 1,252,987 Tulsa 937,478 difference: 315,509

Census rarity: Tulsa 2013 population change outpaces Broken Arrow - Tulsa World: Newshomepage2

List of Metropolitan Statistical Areas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's got to be good news for Enid especially since one of their largest employers (Continental Resources) relocated to OKC.

"Oklahoma City looks oh-so pretty... ...as I get my kicks on Route 66." --Nat King Cole.

[DavidD_NorthOKC]

It's a very big stereotypical misconception that OKC is not diverse.

I'm rather surprised the Native American percentage wasn't higher.

[KayneMo]

I would love to see OKC deannex a lot of that land.

Me too. I've thought about that a lot.

Here's a quick drawing I did, this was pretty fun to do!

I included Bethany, Warr Acres, The Village, and Nichols Hills in the drawing just for simplicity.
Population estimate is 486,000 in 155.8 square miles which = 3,119/sq mi.
Take out Lake Hefner area and then it's 151.9 sq mi.
Take out the enclaves and their populations and the new data becomes approximately 442,500 in 139.4 sq mi which = 3,174/sq mi.

[bchris02]

Here's a quick drawing I did, this was pretty fun to do!

I included Bethany, Warr Acres, The Village, and Nichols Hills in the drawing just for simplicity.
Population estimate is 486,000 in 155.8 square miles which = 3,119/sq mi.
Take out Lake Hefner area and then it's 151.9 sq mi.
Take out the enclaves and their populations and the new data becomes approximately 442,500 in 139.4 sq mi which = 3,174/sq mi.

Pretty good drawing. I would definitely include the Deer Creek area and the West Moore area though. A lot of people live in those areas and they are pretty affluent by Oklahoma standards. In fact, one of the wealthiest zip codes in the state is south of I-240 in SW OKC. Even it including those areas would drop the population density slightly, they are essential.

[dmoor82]

Sometimes I think there are people out there who actually think OKC has 610k people spread out over the entire 600+ square miles, like there is a home or business every half mile! But in reality OKC's population( 75%-85% ) is in the core notated above! I wish National retailers would take this into account

[MFracas84]

This de-annex movement is pretty much counter to population growth. Here we have places like the beloved Charlotte joining with the county to make their numbers larger and in OKC we have people suggesting making the city limits smaller. There are people living in those areas so the numbers will be smaller. While I don't necessarily agree with the opinion of another poster, it does seem to make more sense. That person suggested not de-annexing those areas but rather take this city ownership and control growth to certain areas. One thing that is so bizarre about how this city does things is that they continue to build Northwest and neglect the rest of the city. If this continues, downtown will be considered Southeast. Why not make the development more evenly distributed? Yes we have a lot of infill to do but why is it necessary to keep going Northwest? If the city can urge certain kinds of growth in various areas, then they can urge a little of that NW momentum on the East side. We have always been the step children. By the time I-40 gets widened to three lanes at Tinker, the West side will be widened all the way to Clinton... I am kidding but anyway, just some thoughts.

[bchris02]

Sometimes I think there are people out there who actually think OKC has 610k people spread out over the entire 600+ square miles, like there is a home or business every half mile! But in reality OKC's population( 75%-85% ) is in the core notated above! I wish National retailers would take this into account

I agree. If you read the City-Data forums they like to trash OKC based on the official density figure. As Kayne pointed out though, the density is not to shabby especially for a Southern city if you don't count all the rural, undeveloped land.

[KayneMo]

I'm rather surprised the Native American percentage wasn't higher.

That number may be those who are Native American alone, not including those are also part Native American.
Using both alone and part Native American, OKC is actually 4th in proportion of Native Americans among large US cities.
1st is Anchorage at 12.4%
2nd - Tulsa 9.2%
3rd - Norman 8.1%
4th - OKC 6.3%
5th - Billings, MT 6%
=5th - Albuquerque 6%
7th - Green Bay 5.4%
8th - Tacoma 4%
9th - Tempe 3.9%
10th - Tucson 3.8%

Good Morning, Anchorage! Top 10 Cities With Highest Percentage Natives - ICTMN.com

[bchris02]

This de-annex movement is pretty much counter to population growth. Here we have places like the beloved Charlotte joining with the county to make their numbers larger and in OKC we have people suggesting making the city limits smaller. There are people living in those areas so the numbers will be smaller. While I don't necessarily agree with the opinion of another poster, it does seem to make more sense. That person suggested not de-annexing those areas but rather take this city ownership and control growth to certain areas. One thing that is so bizarre about how this city does things is that they continue to build Northwest and neglect the rest of the city. If this continues, downtown will be considered Southeast. Why not make the development more evenly distributed? Yes we have a lot of infill to do but why is it necessary to keep going Northwest? If the city can urge certain kinds of growth in various areas, then they can urge a little of that NW momentum on the East side. We have always been the step children. By the time I-40 gets widened to three lanes at Tinker, the West side will be widened all the way to Clinton... I am kidding but anyway, just some thoughts.

Louisville is a city/county consolidation. Charlotte is not. Prior to Louisville's consolidation, I believe they only had 200k and change living in the city limits. OKC could deannex without shedding a huge amount of people if it drew the boundaries right. Kayne's example is a little too aggressive, but there are beneficial ways to do it.

As far as continuing to build Northwest, that is largely because of school district boundaries. NE OKC will never seen mass infill as long as it continues to be in the OKC school district. Where you currently are seeing a lot of suburban growth is in far NW OKC, in the Deer Creek district and in SW OKC, in the Moore district.

[BG918]

As far as continuing to build Northwest, that is largely because of school district boundaries. NE OKC will never seen mass infill as long as it continues to be in the OKC school district. Where you currently are seeing a lot of suburban growth is in far NW OKC, in the Deer Creek district and in SW OKC, in the Moore district.

I'm curious where the growth is mainly occurring, which we won't know until the next Census. I suspect it's in the areas you mention though due to new subdivisions and better schools. Though infill is another piece in the downtown area and surrounding neighborhoods.

Per the article Tulsa has seen new growth in eastern areas in the Broken Arrow school district, as well as undeveloped areas in the Jenks district in SW Tulsa. These areas represent some of the last undeveloped land in the city limits outside of Gilcrease Hills in NW Tulsa. Midtown infill and downtown residential also likely played a role in the modest growth since 2010. Both cities will have substantial gains in the downtown census tracts in 2020.

[bchris02]

I'm curious where the growth is mainly occurring, which we won't know until the next Census. I suspect it's in the areas you mention though due to new subdivisions and better schools. Though infill is another piece in the downtown area and surrounding neighborhoods.

I would imagine for families its primarily centered around Deer Creek and West Moore. For young professionals its focused on downtown. Both play a part of the progress of this city.

[Bellaboo]

Huge growth for OKC is in Canadian County. Everyone thinks it's Yukon, but the majority is OKC. IIRC, Canadian County was one of the faster growing counties, and the majority is in West OKC.

Everything South of I-40 is OKC city limits....lots of growth out there.

[adaniel]

Huge growth for OKC is in Canadian County. Everyone thinks it's Yukon, but the majority is OKC. IIRC, Canadian County was one of the faster growing counties, and the majority is in West OKC.

Everything South of I-40 is OKC city limits....lots of growth out there.

While there is definitely a lot of new construction out that way, one thing that's stuck out to me was how much of the metro's growth is being captured in Oklahoma County.

In fact when I looked it up, Oklahoma County accounts for about 55% of OKC MSA's growth from 2011-2013 vs around 41% during the last decade (2001-2010). Whereas Canadian County accounts for about 16% of the MSA's growth in the past 3 years vs 20% in the previous decade.

If I were a betting man, I would beg the fastest growing areas in the city in downtown, with a close 2nd the NW side that lies in Deer Creek school district.

[ljbab728]

I am not so sure about de-annexing any more as much as I am about making it off limits to development. One thing we know for sure, we don't have enough water to develop that land as single family homes.

Kerry, after all the discussions we have had about this, I'm glad to see that you're gradually coming around a little.

[ljbab728]

It's interesting that the Lawton population dropped by about 1,400. That has to be due to some downsizing at Fort Sill.

[DavidD_NorthOKC]

One of the primary factors that drives our present suburb centric development is the public school systems. Many people do not like to hear that, but it is the truth for many people with kids. As much as I would like our development patterns to change, I understand the reasons to move to Edmond, Mustang, Yukon, etc. As the current housing inventory is reduced by new people, the developers will naturally look to capitalize on the preferred locations for new residents and that will usually mean the next ring out. I did the same thing for my kids - I went to the place I believed they would get the best education and maybe once they have graduated, I will be able to be on the next wave of people returning downtown. I respect people that walked the walk better that I did, but honestly I would make the same decision.

It is a chicken and egg proposition to correct it - the schools need to be improved to entice more people to stay or relocate within OKC PS boundaries but they need the revenue from people returning to the district to do so. Which comes first? MAPS4Schools was nice for the buildings but the perception of OKCPS did not improve as much as may have been hoped. John Rex Elementary is a nice step forward and OKCPS has some good schools like Classen, but the overall system is subpar compared to most suburban schools. This issue will only become more important as OKC's population grows and I have not been able to come up with a solution for the quandary.

Maybe the best answer is a development boundary. It makes a lot of sense. Combine that with an incentive package for developers to refurbish the inner neighborhoods and preserve the current city limits for future growth when the population is high enough to make it necessary. And as we decide to develop the outer areas in the future, apply better design standards to those areas based on lessons learned over the past half century.

[dcsooner]

It's interesting that the Lawton population dropped by about 1,400. That has to be due to some downsizing at Fort Sill.

Not surprising if you are from there like me. Lawton has stayed around 100-130 k since I was in High school. 1972. Nothing there but fort sill. Most of my classmates and other young people flee there as soon as they can. You will find them in Dallas, Houston or N C like me.