The biggest U.S. metro areas in 2025

[GG]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31130897/ns/business-local_business/

8 metros will join the million-plus club between 2005 and 2025.
Two have already crossed the line, with Raleigh's population reaching 1 million in November 2006 and Tucson following suit in September 2008.

Next up is Fresno, Calif., which is projected to hit seven figures in April 2015. It will be followed by Bakersfield, Calif.; Cape Coral-Fort Myers, Fla.; McAllen-Edinburg, Texas; Albuquerque; and Tulsa.

The latter is expected to hit 1 million in July 2025, just a few days after its projected July 1 population of 999,753.

[GG]

Interesting information.

[Oil Capital]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31130897/ns/business-local_business/

8 metros will join the million-plus club between 2005 and 2025.
Two have already crossed the line, with Raleigh's population reaching 1 million in November 2006 and Tucson following suit in September 2008.

Next up is Fresno, Calif., which is projected to hit seven figures in April 2015. It will be followed by Bakersfield, Calif.; Cape Coral-Fort Myers, Fla.; McAllen-Edinburg, Texas; Albuquerque; and Tulsa.

The latter is expected to hit 1 million in July 2025, just a few days after its projected July 1 population of 999,753.

Good to see MSNBC right on top of the latest breaking news as usual.  This exact story was in biz journals back in June.  In fact we discussed it  here  -->http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=13633.0

[SXSW]

If the Tulsa continues its current pace of growth I would imagine the metro would be over a million by at least 2015, probably more like 2013 unless American Airlines closes its maintenance base or something like that.  I'll be interested to see the results of the 2010 census for Tulsa, the city.  As we know the city lost people in the early 2000's going from an all-time high of 393,000 to 385,000.  I would bet those numbers have come back up to close or over the 393,000 mark now with more infill around midtown over the past 5 years, new neighborhoods in the few remaining undeveloped areas of far south Tulsa, as well as new neighborhoods in southwest Tulsa north of Jones airport.  There has also been a huge increase this decade in hispanic immigrants who mainly live in east Tulsa, many of which unfortunately won't be counted in the census.  That would be awesome if some how Tulsa crossed the 400,000 threshold in the 2010 census but I doubt it.  If the Gilcrease Loop is finally finished and development in NW Tulsa takes off, plus if there is more residential development in and around downtown, I could see Tulsa getting closer to or over 450,000 by 2025.

[Oil Capital]

If the Tulsa continues its current pace of growth I would imagine the metro would be over a million by at least 2015, probably more like 2013 unless American Airlines closes its maintenance base or something like that.  I'll be interested to see the results of the 2010 census for Tulsa, the city.  As we know the city lost people in the early 2000's going from an all-time high of 393,000 to 385,000.  I would bet those numbers have come back up to close or over the 393,000 mark now with more infill around midtown over the past 5 years, new neighborhoods in the few remaining undeveloped areas of far south Tulsa, as well as new neighborhoods in southwest Tulsa north of Jones airport.  There has also been a huge increase this decade in hispanic immigrants who mainly live in east Tulsa, many of which unfortunately won't be counted in the census.  That would be awesome if some how Tulsa crossed the 400,000 threshold in the 2010 census but I doubt it.  If the Gilcrease Loop is finally finished and development in NW Tulsa takes off, plus if there is more residential development in and around downtown, I could see Tulsa getting closer to or over 450,000 by 2025.

I think you're right about Tulsa metro hitting 1 million well before 2025.  Looks more like 2014 or 2015.

As to Tulsa's city population, according to US Census estimates, we bottomed out at 380,624 in 2005.  As of 2008, we were back up to 385,635.

[OpenYourEyesTulsa]

With more infill downtown and in the "new centers" I see people from out of town finding Tulsa to be a better option than BA, Jenks, Owasso, etc.  The only problem will be improving the Tulsa school district to attract families to Tulsa.

[sauerkraut]

The funny thing about "T" Town is no matter if the city (Metro-area) has 1,000,000 people or not Tulsa always will have that small town feel to it. I guess that is due to the narrow streets, and that Tulsa has no big wide boulevards, or a large "beltway" that circles the city. Cities like Indianapolis, St. Louis & Kansas City have a big city feel to them as if they were much larger than they, IMO that is because of the sprawling suburbs and the wide freeways & beltways. St Louis feels like a big  Chicago-like city, even though it just has about 2 million plus in the metro area. Driving thru St. Louis feels like you'll never get out of it. In Tulsa if you drive a few miles on I-44 east or west your in the rural areas. Omaha is starting to get alot of sprawl. I'm a big fan of sprawl it gives a city more elbow room.

[SXSW]

With more infill downtown and in the "new centers" I see people from out of town finding Tulsa to be a better option than BA, Jenks, Owasso, etc.  The only problem will be improving the Tulsa school district to attract families to Tulsa.

I agree.  If they want the NW side developed once the Gilcrease loop is finished they will have to either improve the existing schools or build new ones.  That area feeds into Central HS which is a fairly good school for TPS standards, and then of course you're not far from the Carver and BTW magnet schools.  The same goes for downtown and surrounding neighborhoods.  The TPS schools in midtown are pretty decent.  The rapidly developing area of SW Tulsa is all in the Jenks district which is probably fueling that growth, along with the construction of Tulsa Hills.  I see that area continuing to grow where in the next 5-10 years there will be new neighborhoods along 71st and 81st from Elwood to Union.  My parents live in that area and it's amazing how much it has grown in the past few years.  I hope the same happens on the NW side, although I hope the new neighborhoods aren't as sprawly as the new ones around Tulsa Hills..

[cannon_fodder]

I'm a big fan of sprawl it gives a city more elbow room.

You realize that Tulsa has about as much elbow room as any city in the nation, right?

In metro areas over 50,000 Tulsa ranks as the 440th most dense city out of 600 (about 2,000 people per square mile).   We rank right next to such well known urban centers as Dubuque, Iowa and Springfield, Missouri.    St. Louis, your example of a city that feels large is #112 at ~6400 per square mile (Chicago is #12 at ~12000/mile). 

Taking our MSA into account we are even less dense than that.  So if having a poorly designed urban sprawl that lacks significant density makes a city feel big, Tulsa should be doing fantastic.

http://www.demographia.com/db-2000city50kdens.htm

[dbacks fan]

[sauerkraut]

You realize that Tulsa has about as much elbow room as any city in the nation, right?

In metro areas over 50,000 Tulsa ranks as the 440th most dense city out of 600 (about 2,000 people per square mile).   We rank right next to such well known urban centers as Dubuque, Iowa and Springfield, Missouri.    St. Louis, your example of a city that feels large is #112 at ~6400 per square mile (Chicago is #12 at ~12000/mile). 

Taking our MSA into account we are even less dense than that.  So if having a poorly designed urban sprawl that lacks significant density makes a city feel big, Tulsa should be doing fantastic.

http://www.demographia.com/db-2000city50kdens.htm

That's right, but Tulsa always has that small town feel to it- I can't place my finger on  why it feels that way- My guess is that Tulsa has no "beltways" circling the city. NashVille, TN has two beltways a smaller inner beltway and a larger outter beltway, Nashville, TN & Tulsa are almost the same size with the Metro-Area, but driving thru Nashville you feel like your in a large city. Tulsa has a small town feel and look to it. Like I said if you drive 10 miles or so in any direction from downtown Tulsa your in a rural area, if you drive 10 miles or so from downtown Nashville your still in the city sprawl and city traffic choked roads.

[cannon_fodder]

Nashville has a density of 1200 sq/mile.  That's simply horrible from an environmental, municipal efficiency (fire, medical and police coverage.  Road maintenance. Utility lines.  Sewage. ) , and transportation standpoint.   No one must have told the people in places WITH congestion that it was a good thing - because they keep spending money to get rid of it. 

Plus, the metro Nashville area is 1.6 million people.  Twice that of Tulsa.  That doesn't count as "almost the same size" in my book.

And finally, if you drive 10 miles South East from downtown Tulsa you are NOT in a rural area (almost to BA).  10 Miles South and you are NOT in a rural area (101st and Riverside).  10 miles East and you are NOT in a rural area (Cherokee Casino is 13 miles from the Civic Center).   

I understand what you are saying.  Congestion.  Urban sprawl.  Long commute times.  Crime.  It makes it feel like a big city.  But that doesn't mean it's good.  As I stated before, if urban sprawl makes a city seem big . . . Tulsa is doing better than 3/4ths of the other cities in the nation.

[OpenYourEyesTulsa]

I always thought it would be a good idea for Tulsa to annex some nearby towns like Omaha, NE did.  Does anyone else agree?  Downtown is normally in the middle of a city and in Tulsa it is on the west side.  Maybe annex more areas to the west like the Osage Hills (Which is where the botanical garden and the giant indian statue will be) to make downtown be more in the middle.  Also I think it would be a good idea to annex Catoosa and Jenks since those are growing entertainment areas.

[sauerkraut]

I always thought it would be a good idea for Tulsa to annex some nearby towns like Omaha, NE did.  Does anyone else agree?  Downtown is normally in the middle of a city and in Tulsa it is on the west side.  Maybe annex more areas to the west like the Osage Hills (Which is where the botanical garden and the giant indian statue will be) to make downtown be more in the middle.  Also I think it would be a good idea to annex Catoosa and Jenks since those are growing entertainment areas.

Your right about Omaha, Nebraska they annexed quite a few little towns even against the wishes of the people who lived there. Omaha has a population of something like 420,000 as a result- I don't know if Tulsa needs to annex anything it won't change the population of the Metro area, it will just increase the population of Tulsa.