Population Growth for OKC

[G.Walker]

Yes, OKC has good population growth, but we know the true population of a city is the MSA. Going by the MSA gauges the correct economic impact, influence, and growth trajectory of a city. For example, Atlanta's population is just 500,000 but its MSA is 6.1 million.

So I don't get too hung up on city proper population.

[Plutonic Panda]

^^^ it’s a crime this is rarely mentioned but OKC actually has a bigger population number than Atlanta. So OKC must be the bigger city with more to do and a bigger airport. /s

[stlokc]

MSA really is the more important number for a variety of reasons. It's important to remember that the city proper's significant population growth is almost completely a function of its annexation binge. If OKC's city limits were the same size as most eastern and midwestern cities, I have no doubt the city population would be pretty stagnant. The boom in the core would be offset by - probably - falling numbers in many older parts of town.

[Bunty]

Here is the link to the city population data. OKC remains number 20 and is growing by about 6,500 people a year — just in city limits — to a population of 694,000 in 2022.

Tulsa is continuing to lose population within its city limits although the decline is not substantial, about 1k a year.

https://www2.census.gov/programs-sur...22-ANNRNK.xlsx

Tulsa's $10,000 incentive to get people to move there evidentially isn't doing a good job of making up for people who move out of Tulsa.

https://tulsaremote.com

[shavethewhales]

^Tulsa Remote is kind of like sticking your finger in a leaking hole. There's still a lot of pressure pushing younger, tech-focused people out of Tulsa (actually Oklahoma at large and not just Tulsa). The TR people I have met only stick around for a few years. They like Tulsa a bit and always say it's not as bad as they thought, but they never stick around long term. It's hard to convince people that Tulsa (or anywhere in OK) is a great long term spot to settle down for reasons we have discussed in plenty of other threads. I think TR accomplished a few things such as helping expand our tech presence and get Holberton School off the ground, among other things, but it was an expensive program with not a lot of long term impact. Holberton is a much bigger deal in attracting and building younger talent and getting them to stick around for awhile.

[Just the facts]

The wife and I have thought about taking advantage of the Tulsa program since we both work remote but Tulsa is missing one item at the top of our list - we want to live somewhere that has some form of rail transit.

[soonerguru]

MSA really is the more important number for a variety of reasons. It's important to remember that the city proper's significant population growth is almost completely a function of its annexation binge. If OKC's city limits were the same size as most eastern and midwestern cities, I have no doubt the city population would be pretty stagnant. The boom in the core would be offset by - probably - falling numbers in many older parts of town.

You make a very fair point here but OKC's inner city is growing in population, too. The number of large-scale apartment buildings and infill projects under way in the urban core is significant in OKC right now. And with so much developable land in the urban core, the scenario you describe is unlikely to happen here -- at least for many, many years unless for some reason living in the core becomes immensely undesirable, something that seems unlikely.

Pete has described all of the activity in his neighborhood, but it's happening all around the urban core, at least north of the river. Now, there is activity starting to pop in the Capitol Hill area as well, so this movement may broaden to include those adjacent neighborhoods south of the river.

Personally, I think it would be outstanding if OKC could hit a population of one million in city limits in the slightly enlarged area above, excluding the land in Canadian and Cleveland and Pottawatomie Counties, and it seems very likely to occur within the next decade or two, provided we continue to have the outstanding leadership we enjoy now coupled with continued success diversifying and modernizing our economy.

1. It would put OKC in the top 10 or so of US cities.
2. Our urban character would be enhanced and improved.
3. Our transit system would be improved to accommodate greater demand.
4. Our land-use policies would be more coherent and modernized.

And, even if the empty parcels all disappear, there's still the prospect of building with more height and more high-density housing down the road. I'm not a demographer or cartographer or anything of the sort, but it seems OKC could easily add another 150k to the urban core, which for the sake of my argument extends out to say Belle Isle on the Northwest, 63rd street on the north, I-44 and Hefner Parkway on the west, I-35 on the east, plus the expanding territory immediately south of the river, which is already showing signs of new infill, with a resolute southern boundary of I-240.

Then, if you really want to look at it more expansively, the neighborhoods just west of I-44 and just north of 63rd really up to say Britton Road and south to 89th could really be considered Oklahoma City, as opposed to the burbs.

I mean, thinking of this even more, if infill continued to all of those boundaries, and perhaps up Northwest Expressway to, say, McCarthur or even Rockwell, OKC could probably fit another 400k people in this slightly expanded boundary without doing too much that is radical.

[stlokc]

Soonerguru,
Outstanding points.

I agree that OKC could add 300K to get to one million people by engaging in high-density infill in the core and selected other areas, and even by continuing to build out single family in some areas. For example, you could get tens of thousands of people between Broadway Extension and I-35 in North OKC even with standard, single family development. You could build out the areas between Mustang and the airport, and along the Kilpatrick in all directions with single-family.

But the real key would be the under-utilized neighborhoods all throughout the core. In the OKANA thread, somebody made mention of all the vacant property around there. There is lots of vacant land around Wheeler, and many of the neighborhoods in near NE, near NW, and near S OKC are chock-a-block with vacant lots.

I don't have the time to do this project justice, but someone in a college class could look at the average density inside the Kilpatrick/240/35 loop, compare with average density of even the average American city and find a bunch of pathways to that goal. The result would be a much stronger, much more sustainable city that can support all kinds of things, notably transit. I'd love to see it.

[chssooner]

A big problem hindering the core of OKC is that the school system is atrocious. Edmond, Moore, Norman, Yukon, Mustang, Deer Creek, these all have high-performing districts. OKC does not. So it is hard to get families who value education even a wink to move in the core of OKC. Or not into a suburb.

[stlokc]

Chssooner, I'm not 100 percent sure that I agree with that statement. But even acknowledging that valid opinion and leaving that aside, I think what many of us of child-rearing years (and I am in that mode myself) fail to think about is that families with school-age children represent only a portion of the residents of a city.

Most people in their 20s, at least in an urban area, do not have school-age children.
Many people in their 30s and 40s do. But certainly not all. And some of them do private school, or magnet schools, or do use their neighborhood schools.
The majority of people over 50 do not have children at home, and the life expectancy is over 80 and climbing.

All that to say, we can't just use "schools" as a whipping boy or an excuse to throw in the towel. Many cities have far worse educational systems and have very, very vibrant urban cores.

[Bunty]

^Tulsa Remote is kind of like sticking your finger in a leaking hole. There's still a lot of pressure pushing younger, tech-focused people out of Tulsa (actually Oklahoma at large and not just Tulsa). The TR people I have met only stick around for a few years. They like Tulsa a bit and always say it's not as bad as they thought, but they never stick around long term. It's hard to convince people that Tulsa (or anywhere in OK) is a great long term spot to settle down for reasons we have discussed in plenty of other threads. I think TR accomplished a few things such as helping expand our tech presence and get Holberton School off the ground, among other things, but it was an expensive program with not a lot of long term impact. Holberton is a much bigger deal in attracting and building younger talent and getting them to stick around for awhile.

I doubt a city bribing people with a $10,000 deal to move there helps its public image. Tulsa not being able to keep up with Oklahoma City much of the time goes back to at least the Great Depression. During the 1930's, Oklahoma City gained nearly 20,000 people. Tulsa barely held on with 101 people.

[KayneMo]

Soonerguru,
Outstanding points.

I agree that OKC could add 300K to get to one million people by engaging in high-density infill in the core and selected other areas, and even by continuing to build out single family in some areas. For example, you could get tens of thousands of people between Broadway Extension and I-35 in North OKC even with standard, single family development. You could build out the areas between Mustang and the airport, and along the Kilpatrick in all directions with single-family.

But the real key would be the under-utilized neighborhoods all throughout the core. In the OKANA thread, somebody made mention of all the vacant property around there. There is lots of vacant land around Wheeler, and many of the neighborhoods in near NE, near NW, and near S OKC are chock-a-block with vacant lots.

I don't have the time to do this project justice, but someone in a college class could look at the average density inside the Kilpatrick/240/35 loop, compare with average density of even the average American city and find a bunch of pathways to that goal. The result would be a much stronger, much more sustainable city that can support all kinds of things, notably transit. I'd love to see it.

The area highlighted in blue had a 2020 census population of 436,468 in an area of about 118.8 sq miles for a density of 3,674/sq mi.
Here are other cities' densities for comparison:
Denver - 4,674/sq mi
Dallas - 3,841
Atlanta - 3,686
Houston - 3,599
Omaha - 3,433
Albuquerque - 3,014
Austin - 3,007
Ft Worth - 2,646
Tulsa - 2,091

[PhiAlpha]

^Tulsa Remote is kind of like sticking your finger in a leaking hole. There's still a lot of pressure pushing younger, tech-focused people out of Tulsa (actually Oklahoma at large and not just Tulsa). The TR people I have met only stick around for a few years. They like Tulsa a bit and always say it's not as bad as they thought, but they never stick around long term. It's hard to convince people that Tulsa (or anywhere in OK) is a great long term spot to settle down for reasons we have discussed in plenty of other threads. I think TR accomplished a few things such as helping expand our tech presence and get Holberton School off the ground, among other things, but it was an expensive program with not a lot of long term impact. Holberton is a much bigger deal in attracting and building younger talent and getting them to stick around for awhile.

That isn’t necessarily true. I know several of the people running the program as well as several that came to Tulsa through it. More than you’re suggesting have stuck around, some have even bought houses and started/moved businesses here. Generally the ones who left (that I’ve met) really liked Tulsa but either took assignments that required them to be elsewhere or were nomads before coming to Tulsa that had been taking advantage of their remote positions trying to live in a bunch of different places while they were young. Regardless it’s not like the program ever intended to bring 100000 people here. It’s relatively small.

[PhiAlpha]

You make a very fair point here but OKC's inner city is growing in population, too. The number of large-scale apartment buildings and infill projects under way in the urban core is significant in OKC right now. And with so much developable land in the urban core, the scenario you describe is unlikely to happen here -- at least for many, many years unless for some reason living in the core becomes immensely undesirable, something that seems unlikely.

Pete has described all of the activity in his neighborhood, but it's happening all around the urban core, at least north of the river. Now, there is activity starting to pop in the Capitol Hill area as well, so this movement may broaden to include those adjacent neighborhoods south of the river.

Personally, I think it would be outstanding if OKC could hit a population of one million in city limits in the slightly enlarged area above, excluding the land in Canadian and Cleveland and Pottawatomie Counties, and it seems very likely to occur within the next decade or two, provided we continue to have the outstanding leadership we enjoy now coupled with continued success diversifying and modernizing our economy.

1. It would put OKC in the top 10 or so of US cities.
2. Our urban character would be enhanced and improved.
3. Our transit system would be improved to accommodate greater demand.
4. Our land-use policies would be more coherent and modernized.

And, even if the empty parcels all disappear, there's still the prospect of building with more height and more high-density housing down the road. I'm not a demographer or cartographer or anything of the sort, but it seems OKC could easily add another 150k to the urban core, which for the sake of my argument extends out to say Belle Isle on the Northwest, 63rd street on the north, I-44 and Hefner Parkway on the west, I-35 on the east, plus the expanding territory immediately south of the river, which is already showing signs of new infill, with a resolute southern boundary of I-240.

Then, if you really want to look at it more expansively, the neighborhoods just west of I-44 and just north of 63rd really up to say Britton Road and south to 89th could really be considered Oklahoma City, as opposed to the burbs.

I mean, thinking of this even more, if infill continued to all of those boundaries, and perhaps up Northwest Expressway to, say, McCarthur or even Rockwell, OKC could probably fit another 400k people in this slightly expanded boundary without doing too much that is radical.

inject all of this into my veins.

[PhiAlpha]

A big problem hindering the core of OKC is that the school system is atrocious. Edmond, Moore, Norman, Yukon, Mustang, Deer Creek, these all have high-performing districts. OKC does not. So it is hard to get families who value education even a wink to move in the core of OKC. Or not into a suburb.

that is a problem but isn’t all that different than most other urban areas.

[chssooner]

that is a problem but isn’t all that different than most other urban areas.

Not at all, but OKC is at the beginning of this. Other urban areas are older and more developed. OKC needs to weather the storm.

[PhiAlpha]

I doubt a city bribing people with a $10,000 deal to move there helps its public image. Tulsa not being able to keep up with Oklahoma City much of the time goes back to at least the Great Depression. During the 1930's, Oklahoma City gained nearly 20,000 people. Tulsa barely held on with 101 people.

it absolutely helps Tulsa/Oklahoma’s public image. All of those people now have a much more favorable opinion of Tulsa that they’re sharing with their friends/family whether they stay or not. Also a bunch of the people I know in the program have invited friends and family to visit and I haven’t heard anything but positive reviews from those crowds. Even those that wouldn’t want to live here still leave thinking “hey Tulsa is actually pretty cool”

[BG918]

Tulsa and OKC have tons of room for additional infill but need to modernize their land use codes to eliminate parking requirements. That limits what can be built and the amount of new housing.

[stlokc]

KayneMo,
Thank you for this comparison. I'm pleasantly surprised at these density numbers. I suspect that this is comparing the most dense parts of OKC with the entirety of these other Western and southern cities. So this is a generous comparison. But it's as good a comparison as can be made without exhaustive analysis. So I really appreciate this contribution to the conversation.

[Swake]

I just plain don't believe the estimates that the city of Tulsa is shrinking, it defies logic and what is going on in the city:

Tulsa is facing a housing shortage with only limited supply of homes for sale. With interest rates going up there are more houses for sale than last year, but it is still historically very low. As part of the Improve Our Tulsa plan being voted on later this year the city is proposing a $104 million fund to improve neighborhoods and build more affordable housing.

Even with the higher interest rates there were more than 300 new homes built in the city. I know there were apartments added as well, but I can't find a number.

Tulsa's occupancy rate for rentals and apartments is above 95%

So hundreds of new housing units plus housing shortage plus historically high occupancy rates does not equal shrinking. The Census is wrong. They were badly wrong in the 2019 estimate before the census came out and they apparently have not fixed their population model for Tulsa since then.

[BDP]

I can accept the concept that the census may be wrong, but only for Tulsa? Was it applied differently to Tulsa? How so and why?

I'm just asking questions here.

[Swake]

I can accept the concept that the census may be wrong, but only for Tulsa? Was it applied differently to Tulsa? How so and why?

I'm just asking questions here.

I don't think it's just the city of Tulsa and these are still just estimates. Tulsa's seems to be wrong and the Census has a track record for getting Tulsa's estimates wrong. According to the 2019 Census estimate Tulsa had grown by just 2.4% since 2010 (and in fact was losing population year by year since 2016) but the actual 2020 census had Tulsa growing by 5.4%, since 2010, almost double the census estimate.

A funny one I have seen is Wagoner, that according to the 2020 census lost 100 people in population since 2010, but since 2020 the population there has soared by 512 people? In two years? Why? I have relatives there and it is NOT a boomtown. It's a city with very few housing starts and zero new apartments. That kind of growth is not even possible.

I think, and this is just speculation, that the census is logically guessing that people are leaving densely populated areas and moving to rural areas because of Covid. But they are wild ass guessing at where people are moving from and to. I don't think they have a handle on moving trends right now. It's also why the estimates have so many rural Oklahoma counties growing all of the sudden after losing population for decades. But when you go to those places, there is no growth.

[KayneMo]

KayneMo,
Thank you for this comparison. I'm pleasantly surprised at these density numbers. I suspect that this is comparing the most dense parts of OKC with the entirety of these other Western and southern cities. So this is a generous comparison. But it's as good a comparison as can be made without exhaustive analysis. So I really appreciate this contribution to the conversation.

No problem, but even in the map I provided there's tons of undeveloped land and developed land with no population, so I think it's a fairly good comparison to the cities I listed. Add in 5 sq miles with no population and the density drops down to 3,526/sq mi, and 10 more sq miles with no population and the density is still just under 3,400/sq mi.

Of the 50 largest cities with a density under 10,000/sq mi, the average density is 3,962/sq mi and the median density is 3,405/sq mi. If the maximum is lowered to 50 largest cities under 8,000/sq mi, the average is now 3,640/sq mi and median is 3,278/sq mi.

[Bunty]

I don't think it's just the city of Tulsa and these are still just estimates. Tulsa's seems to be wrong and the Census has a track record for getting Tulsa's estimates wrong. According to the 2019 Census estimate Tulsa had grown by just 2.4% since 2010 (and in fact was losing population year by year since 2016) but the actual 2020 census had Tulsa growing by 5.4%, since 2010, almost double the census estimate.

A funny one I have seen is Wagoner, that according to the 2020 census lost 100 people in population since 2010, but since 2020 the population there has soared by 512 people? In two years? Why? I have relatives there and it is NOT a boomtown. It's a city with very few housing starts and zero new apartments. That kind of growth is not even possible.

I think, and this is just speculation, that the census is logically guessing that people are leaving densely populated areas and moving to rural areas because of Covid. But they are wild ass guessing at where people are moving from and to. I don't think they have a handle on moving trends right now. It's also why the estimates have so many rural Oklahoma counties growing all of the sudden after losing population for decades. But when you go to those places, there is no growth.

Wagoner is located on the east side of Wagoner County which makes it further from Tulsa than the rest of the county, so possibly explains population loss from 2010 to 2020. Also Wagoner is a short drive from Muskogee, which has had no growth for a long time. Coweta is a shorter drive to Tulsa, yet it also had population loss from 2010 to 2020. Coweta, like Wagoner, also gained population from 2020 to 2022, helping to push Wagoner County ahead of sluggish Payne County. I guess cheaper housing has been rediscovered on the east side of Wagoner County and surely has nothing to do with covid. Don't know why it doesn't look more visible unless new housing is tucked away in the woods.

Rural parts of Oklahoma that are both remote from an Interstate and a major metro aren't going to benefit from any new trend.

[stlokc]

No problem, but even in the map I provided there's tons of undeveloped land and developed land with no population, so I think it's a fairly good comparison to the cities I listed. Add in 5 sq miles with no population and the density drops down to 3,526/sq mi, and 10 more sq miles with no population and the density is still just under 3,400/sq mi.

Of the 50 largest cities with a density under 10,000/sq mi, the average density is 3,962/sq mi and the median density is 3,405/sq mi. If the maximum is lowered to 50 largest cities under 8,000/sq mi, the average is now 3,640/sq mi and median is 3,278/sq mi.

That's great context, thank you!