Widgets Magazine
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 110
  1. #26

    Default Re: OKC Population Density

    Map I made using Google Earth. I used Census 2017 5-year population estimates to add up the densest block groups within OKC (2017 5-year estimate for the city is 629,191).

    The areas shaded in white contains approximately 531,762 residents (84.5% of total pop.) within 166 sq mi (27.7% of total land area) for a density of 3,204/sq mi.
    The remaining 435 sq mi shaded in red contains approximately 97,429 residents for a density of 224/sq mi.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	okc map.jpg 
Views:	310 
Size:	1.55 MB 
ID:	15234

  2. #27

    Default Re: OKC Population Density

    Thats cool thanks for posting!!

  3. #28

    Default Re: OKC Population Density

    I really wish the city could find a way to give away/sell off some of those outskirts to surrounding cities. It seems like a good trade off to lose some OKC residents, while also shedding 400+ square miles of land to provide for and maintain. I would think our tax dollars could go a lot further if we were able to do that.

  4. #29

    Default Re: OKC Population Density

    Quote Originally Posted by RaRaRyan View Post
    I really wish the city could find a way to give away/sell off some of those outskirts to surrounding cities. It seems like a good trade off to lose some OKC residents, while also shedding 400+ square miles of land to provide for and maintain. I would think our tax dollars could go a lot further if we were able to do that.
    Are you serious? I guess you could build a wall lol. So if you got your way you do realize downtown would not have enough money to pay for all those projects. And those outskirts likely pay higher taxes in property with all those houses and gas tax from driving.

    Just remember the cost per square mile of upkeep is also cheaper in those outskirts. And in time that land will fill in too. I don’t think you realize how many businesses (taxes) are based in those areas. Take a suburban house and imagine all the ripple effect taxes collected by OKC. They have fences and need to replace often enough. The fence builder pays taxes to the business to buy fence. The home owner pays money to the fence company who pays OKC taxes. Yard cutters pay taxes from mowing yards. Weed company pays taxes for all those homes using then. Garage door companies pay taxes for house garage door work. Roofers pay taxes for re-roofing work. Then all the eating and shopping places pay taxes plus customers.

    Keep in mind a lot of house/yard related business is not needed for condo’s and apartments in relation to houses.

    This is just crazy and I hope you were joking.

  5. #30

    Default Re: OKC Population Density

    Quote Originally Posted by RaRaRyan View Post
    I really wish the city could find a way to give away/sell off some of those outskirts to surrounding cities. It seems like a good trade off to lose some OKC residents, while also shedding 400+ square miles of land to provide for and maintain. I would think our tax dollars could go a lot further if we were able to do that.
    keep in mind that about half of those 400+ miles are the area for TINKER AFB and the crash runway zone south and Draper (water supply) and the land next to draper that may become a future water source ...

    then the land for the okc airport and crash zone south ... and the i40 west strip that has little residents but lots and lots of commercial ..

    the other 2-3 hundred miles i absolutly agree with

  6. #31

    Default Re: OKC Population Density

    Quote Originally Posted by OKC Guy View Post
    Are you serious? I guess you could build a wall lol. So if you got your way you do realize downtown would not have enough money to pay for all those projects. And those outskirts likely pay higher taxes in property with all those houses and gas tax from driving.

    Just remember the cost per square mile of upkeep is also cheaper in those outskirts. And in time that land will fill in too. I don’t think you realize how many businesses (taxes) are based in those areas. Take a suburban house and imagine all the ripple effect taxes collected by OKC. They have fences and need to replace often enough. The fence builder pays taxes to the business to buy fence. The home owner pays money to the fence company who pays OKC taxes. Yard cutters pay taxes from mowing yards. Weed company pays taxes for all those homes using then. Garage door companies pay taxes for house garage door work. Roofers pay taxes for re-roofing work. Then all the eating and shopping places pay taxes plus customers.

    Keep in mind a lot of house/yard related business is not needed for condo’s and apartments in relation to houses.

    This is just crazy and I hope you were joking.
    I don't think it is crazy. Why should OKC have the land all around Mustang? At least for out west, Yukon, Piedmont, and Mustang should all be share boarders. The land OKC does have out there is not taken care of very well by the city. Plus it is confusing for those residents to say they live in Yukon, and use Yukon roads and schools, but pay taxes and utilities to OKC. I don't really understand how the city came up with these areas where everything is with a different city. I would think we could start with OKC giving up the areas outside of Oklahoma County.

  7. #32

    Default Re: OKC Population Density

    Quote Originally Posted by PaddyShack View Post
    I don't think it is crazy. Why should OKC have the land all around Mustang? At least for out west, Yukon, Piedmont, and Mustang should all be share boarders. The land OKC does have out there is not taken care of very well by the city. Plus it is confusing for those residents to say they live in Yukon, and use Yukon roads and schools, but pay taxes and utilities to OKC. I don't really understand how the city came up with these areas where everything is with a different city. I would think we could start with OKC giving up the areas outside of Oklahoma County.

    No I don’t agree with that at all. The city needs to keep its land. If OKC can fill its land with a mix of suburban and urban development, it would boost a very high population one day. Furthermore it can master plan and urban farmland is a great use of land to experiment with. Having lots of land to develop is a great thing. Why would the city get rid of land that could benefit it one day? That is short sighted.

  8. #33

    Default Re: OKC Population Density

    Quote Originally Posted by Plutonic Panda View Post
    No I don’t agree with that at all. The city needs to keep its land. If OKC can fill its land with a mix of suburban and urban development, it would boost a very high population one day. Furthermore it can master plan and urban farmland is a great use of land to experiment with. Having lots of land to develop is a great thing. Why would the city get rid of land that could benefit it one day? That is short sighted.
    Oh I know it is not good for OKC. I am arguing from one who lives in Yukon, for what would be better for Yukon. If I was in OKC I wouldn't want to loose any amount of tax base to a neighboring city.

  9. #34

    Default Re: OKC Population Density


    The bulk of residents in OKC live in core of our city. We need to keep & maintain the 620 square mile radius for future growth.

  10. #35

    Default Re: OKC Population Density

    Quote Originally Posted by PaddyShack View Post
    I don't think it is crazy. Why should OKC have the land all around Mustang? At least for out west, Yukon, Piedmont, and Mustang should all be share boarders. The land OKC does have out there is not taken care of very well by the city. Plus it is confusing for those residents to say they live in Yukon, and use Yukon roads and schools, but pay taxes and utilities to OKC. I don't really understand how the city came up with these areas where everything is with a different city. I would think we could start with OKC giving up the areas outside of Oklahoma County.
    I can agree with small sections where borders are whacko. But he is suggesting getting rid of 2/3rds of OKC lol

  11. #36

    Default Re: OKC Population Density

    Quote Originally Posted by OKC Guy View Post
    Are you serious? I guess you could build a wall lol. So if you got your way you do realize downtown would not have enough money to pay for all those projects. And those outskirts likely pay higher taxes in property with all those houses and gas tax from driving.

    Just remember the cost per square mile of upkeep is also cheaper in those outskirts. And in time that land will fill in too. I don’t think you realize how many businesses (taxes) are based in those areas. Take a suburban house and imagine all the ripple effect taxes collected by OKC. They have fences and need to replace often enough. The fence builder pays taxes to the business to buy fence. The home owner pays money to the fence company who pays OKC taxes. Yard cutters pay taxes from mowing yards. Weed company pays taxes for all those homes using then. Garage door companies pay taxes for house garage door work. Roofers pay taxes for re-roofing work. Then all the eating and shopping places pay taxes plus customers.

    Keep in mind a lot of house/yard related business is not needed for condo’s and apartments in relation to houses.

    This is just crazy and I hope you were joking.
    Huh? The outskirts absolutely do not pay more or higher property taxes than the more urban areas. The denser it is the more property taxes paid. Besides, the city doesnt benefit much at all from property taxes, the county does.

    The ripple effects of these taxes you talk about dont bring into consideration where the materials are actually bought. The fence material could be bought at the Mustang Lowes. And yard cutters and weed companies are paying no sales taxes since its a service. All the eating and shopping isnt happening in places that have no eating and shopping options. Sure, commercial development usually follows the rooftops but the city doesnt gain much from a smattering of homes on acreages, just a little from water, trash, sewer. The only hope is commercial development comes at some point in the future. In the meantime it costs money for road upkeep and expansion, utility extensions, police and fire.

  12. #37

    Default Re: OKC Population Density

    So if you got your way you do realize downtown would not have enough money to pay for all those projects.
    The core would have more money because OKC would not have to subsidize these far flung areas.

    Just remember the cost per square mile of upkeep is also cheaper in those outskirts.
    Cost per square mile is incredibly more expensive in the outskirts because there are far less people to pay for the same area. Its just basic math.

  13. #38

    Default Re: OKC Population Density

    Quote Originally Posted by OKC Guy View Post
    I can agree with small sections where borders are whacko. But he is suggesting getting rid of 2/3rds of OKC lol
    I should have phrased that better. I didn’t mean all 400 square miles. But shedding areas around Mustang and Yukon, and some of the excess in the NE corner really wouldn’t hurt tax revenue streams, and it wouldn’t affect future growth much either. OKC is already a massive city in terms of land area. We are not going to run out of space, even if you get rid of 100 square miles in strategic areas.

    I only mentioned that because every time I read up on why OKC has poor transit, poor road conditions etc., one of the main reasons given is always “because OKC is spread too thin”. Many people always make the argument that our roads in the core suffer because we are forced to also maintain 100s of square miles where effectively nobody drives comparatively. How come our buses don’t serve the whole city? “Because we have too much area to cover”. We end up having to spend money on police, fire, radio, transit, and many more services in areas that are extremely rural currently. Sure in 50-100 years those areas may very well be suburban and bring in businesses and revenue. They could also remain undeveloped and sparse. We have no idea how some of the outskirts will play out. They could developer into residential areas that feed people into Mustang or Yukon where they will spend all their money instead of in OKC.

    I’m all for holding on to MOST of what we have, but looking at future growth, cost to maintain and serve the area, and ability to increase revenue, there seems to be some areas where the city can shed some of these excess land and better serve its community with services.

  14. #39

    Default Re: OKC Population Density

    Quote Originally Posted by GoGators View Post
    The core would have more money because OKC would not have to subsidize these far flung areas.


    Cost per square mile is incredibly more expensive in the outskirts because there are far less people to pay for the same area. Its just basic math.

    Not true. Outskirts don’t have streetcar and arena and on and on and on. If not for those massive costing projects they would be fine cost wise. More OKC tax money is channeled downtown than out of downtown. Not saying good or bad it just is.

    For example, streetcar would only have tax money from a smaller area so it would have cost those less people more per person to build the same route.

  15. #40

    Default Re: OKC Population Density

    Quote Originally Posted by OKC Guy View Post
    Not true. Outskirts don’t have streetcar and arena and on and on and on. If not for those massive costing projects they would be fine cost wise. More OKC tax money is channeled downtown than out of downtown. Not saying good or bad it just is.

    For example, streetcar would only have tax money from a smaller area so it would have cost those less people more per person to build the same route.
    You are mixing sales tax with property taxes to justify your point here. Those people who live out in the areas that OKC would lose, probably would still drive to OKC limits for their jobs and to shop. The streetcar was funded by more than just OKC residents.
    Last edited by PaddyShack; 04-12-2019 at 12:15 PM. Reason: spelling

  16. #41

    Default Re: OKC Population Density

    Quote Originally Posted by GoGators View Post
    The core would have more money because OKC would not have to subsidize these far flung areas.



    Cost per square mile is incredibly more expensive in the outskirts because there are far less people to pay for the same area. Its just basic math.
    What about the areas where people actually live? Because if you are referring to those areas, those are the suburbs, not the core. Though more people in dense areas, the case could be made it is still cheaper to build with less people in the same area when you have projects like the Big Dig or 2nd Ave. subway extension which costs billions per mile vs. millions per mile in suburbs.

  17. #42

    Default Re: OKC Population Density

    Quote Originally Posted by PaddyShack View Post
    You are mixing sales tax with property taxes to justify your point here. Those people who live out in the areas that OKC would lose, probably would still drive to OKC limits for their jobs and to shop. The streetcar was funded by more than just OKC residents.
    But my main point is you would shrink your tax base no matter how a person wants to spin it. Streetcar would still have less payers so each person in downtown area he proposes keeping would either have less projects or pay more taxes. Business would pay more taxes.

    The new “cities” would not be paying for mega projects only their own lesser city projects.

    Those mega projects only work on the bigger scale. And besides Streetcar I like all of them for the community. If you break up OKC your tax base goes down there is no other way to spin it. Those businesses would be paying tax in the new city not OKC.

    As for the general topic unless each city in these fringe areas (where borders are whacko) agree to swap land it will never happen. No city gives up land unless they get land. Its all taxable.

  18. #43

    Default Re: OKC Population Density

    Quote Originally Posted by PaddyShack View Post
    You are mixing sales tax with property taxes to justify your point here. Those people who live out in the areas that OKC would lose, probably would still drive to OKC limits for their jobs and to shop. The streetcar was funded by more than just OKC residents.

    No, both are applicable here

  19. #44

    Default Re: OKC Population Density

    Quote Originally Posted by OKC Guy View Post
    Not true. Outskirts don’t have streetcar and arena and on and on and on. If not for those massive costing projects they would be fine cost wise. More OKC tax money is channeled downtown than out of downtown. Not saying good or bad it just is.

    For example, streetcar would only have tax money from a smaller area so it would have cost those less people more per person to build the same route.
    this is absolutly not true the core funds the entire city

  20. #45

    Default Re: OKC Population Density

    Quote Originally Posted by BoulderSooner View Post
    this is absolutly not true the core funds the entire city
    How does that work? If you’re going to try and use the argument that most employers are located there(which I don’t how true that is as I haven’t looked at the facts around that) then it should be noted that what you are insinuating is a two way street and they couldn’t operate without the people which live in the areas outside of the core.

    That said, many of the metros largest employers like Tinker and Education are outside of the core. Most OKC schools are outside of the core. I am really interested to know your logic in the core funds the entire city unless you’re being sarcastic. The only other thing I could think of city halls which collects and allocate city funds being located in the core, but then again, see my earlier argument.

  21. #46

    Default Re: OKC Population Density

    Quote Originally Posted by Plutonic Panda View Post
    How does that work? If you’re going to try and use the argument that most employers are located there(which I don’t how true that is as I haven’t looked at the facts around that) then it should be noted that what you are insinuating is a two way street and they couldn’t operate without the people which live in the areas outside of the core.

    That said, many of the metros largest employers like Tinker and Education are outside of the core. Most OKC schools are outside of the core. I am really interested to know your logic in the core funds the entire city unless you’re being sarcastic. The only other thing I could think of city halls which collects and allocate city funds being located in the core, but then again, see my earlier argument.
    again i didn't say down town or the CBD sales tax dollars in the core is what funds our city

  22. #47

    Default Re: OKC Population Density

    If you break up OKC your tax base goes down there is no other way to spin it.
    Yes, Tax base would go down but the amount of land the city has to maintain goes down.

    if i can keep 85 percent of my tax base and get rid of of 70 percent of the area i had to service, i'm doing that every time. its a financial winner.

    No city gives up land unless they get land. Its all taxable.
    this is not true. CIties who understand economies of scale are already doing this.

  23. #48

    Default Re: OKC Population Density

    Quote Originally Posted by GoGators View Post
    Yes, Tax base would go down but the amount of land the city has to maintain goes down.

    if i can keep 85 percent of my tax base and get rid of of 70 percent of the area i had to service, i'm doing that every time. its a financial winner.



    this is not true. CIties who understand economies of scale are already doing this.
    Link to all these cities giving away land recently

  24. #49

    Default Re: OKC Population Density

    Quote Originally Posted by GoGators View Post
    Yes, Tax base would go down but the amount of land the city has to maintain goes down.

    if i can keep 85 percent of my tax base and get rid of of 70 percent of the area i had to service, i'm doing that every time. its a financial winner.



    this is not true. CIties who understand economies of scale are already doing this.
    So you made my point. You would have less major projects or higher taxes. Ripple effect of higher taxes means some companies might skip OKC too. More citizens move out due to higher taxes. In fact NYC is seeing that out migration due to higher taxes. Same for high tax Cali cities and companies.

    There is so much more to OKC than just downtown.

  25. #50

    Default Re: OKC Population Density

    Quote Originally Posted by OKC Guy View Post
    So you made my point. You would have less major projects or higher taxes. Ripple effect of higher taxes means some companies might skip OKC too. More citizens move out due to higher taxes. In fact NYC is seeing that out migration due to higher taxes. Same for high tax Cali cities and companies.

    There is so much more to OKC than just downtown.
    ummm... i think you missed his point, as he sure didn't make yours

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Population Growth for OKC
    By Naptown12713 in forum General Civic Issues
    Replies: 1680
    Last Post: 09-30-2019, 02:22 AM
  2. OKC Metro Population by 2010!!
    By JOHNINSOKC in forum General Civic Issues
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-21-2006, 01:02 PM
  3. What kind of population would OKC need...
    By AFCM in forum General Civic Issues
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 12-20-2006, 11:27 AM
  4. OKC/NOLA Population Comparisions
    By Doug Loudenback in forum Sports
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 03-25-2006, 03:53 PM
  5. OKC population density and growth maps?
    By Luke in forum General Civic Issues
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-09-2005, 11:11 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO