Tulsa population 391,906!

[ZYX]

Tulsa population 391,906! This is new data released by the Census. Technicaly, we fell in population, but considering we were down to like 382,000 after 9/11, that's some pretty good growth. Hopefully soon we will break the 400,000 mark.

[Conan71]

Purely rhetorical question but why do we want to be at some sort of population goal? Regardless of Tulsa's size, we will never get the State Board of Regents to grant us a full four year university.  We also struggle to maintain our infrastructure with the population base we have now.

I'm simply trying to understand why a larger population is better.  I've lived in a 3mm MSA and moved back here to get away from the traffic and associated problems. 

[SXSW]

Tulsa is definitely on the upswing for the past few years, after several years of decline.  I suspect growth in the southwest corner of the city has a lot to do with it, and growth from Hispanics and Asians in east Tulsa.  Hopefully this decade we can start infilling midtown and downtown better before tackling the northwest corner the next decade once (if?) the Gilcrease Turnpike is built.  It is too bad the city limits were drawn where they are in the southeast as that is where most of the growth was in the Tulsa area.

[dbacks fan]

  I've lived in a 3mm MSA and moved back here to get away from the traffic and associated problems. 

That's one of the reasons people are moving to the central part of the US. I know that it is one of the things in my searching for possible job opportunities, and I know several people that are contemplating the same ideas. We are all employed right now just looking and considering a change.

[swake]

The Tulsa MSA is at 937,478 and the CSA is at 988,454. The Tulsa CSA will likely pass one million people sometime this year.

[ZYX]

EEEEEEERRRRRRGG...

I really need to stop reading the Tulsa World comments. It just makes me mad. It seems like most of the people on there believe that Tulsa is just about the worst place in the world. Heck, opening your front door could get you shot down here...

[Renaissance]

Purely rhetorical question but why do we want to be at some sort of population goal?

Population growth is an indicator of economic growth.

[nathanm]

More people means a larger tax base, which either means more/better stuff or slower tax rate growth, presuming we concentrate on infill and don't further grow the city geographically.

[ZYX]

Yes, if we grow up, not out, our taxes will get a heck of a lot more bang for the buck. It could help fund projects to further beautify our city, and improve the quality of life.

[SXSW]

More people means a larger tax base, which either means more/better stuff or slower tax rate growth, presuming we concentrate on infill and don't further grow the city geographically.

And that is what the city should focus on this next decade.  There were some major inroads made the past decade and it's important to keep the momentum.  I'd rather see our growth be nearly all infill in existing areas rather than new subdivisions in the sticks which is what most of OKC's growth was over the past decade due to their insanely large city limits.

[ZYX]

Yes, if OKC suddenly cut their city limits from 600mi down to 183mi, I think the populations of the two cities would be much closer. Where OKC does have us beat, is MSA. They have around 400,000 more people than Tulsa in their MSA.

Up, not out, Tulsa. Up, not out...

[dbacks fan]

Yes, if OKC suddenly cut their city limits from 600mi down to 183mi, I think the populations of the two cities would be much closer. Where OKC does have us beat, is MSA. They have around 400,000 more people than Tulsa in their MSA.

Up, not out, Tulsa. Up, not out...

It wouldn't matter that much if OKC shrank the city limits other than changing thier population number. The fact that Oklohama County is the largest populated coutny in the state would remain the same. Even if the county lines were redrawn, it would still not change.

[TheArtist]

Purely rhetorical question but why do we want to be at some sort of population goal? Regardless of Tulsa's size, we will never get the State Board of Regents to grant us a full four year university.  We also struggle to maintain our infrastructure with the population base we have now.

I'm simply trying to understand why a larger population is better.  I've lived in a 3mm MSA and moved back here to get away from the traffic and associated problems.  

The trick is that if your not growing, your dying. Its hard to stay exactly the same.  If anything you need to show a little constant growth for you know every city at some time or another will have some hard times in which jobs and population decrease, if your growing the decrease can just decrease the growth, if your stagnant or declining the decrease will ramp up even further.  That just means your trying to maintain all that infrastructure with even fewer residents.

My goal would be to encourage future growth in Tulsa to be more condensed into pedestrian friendly/urban transit friendly "nodes" or "urban village" areas.  With good, smart growth patterns you can avoid a lot of the headaches that many larger, sprawling urban areas have created.

Imagine the Tulsa of yesteryear when it was very dense and around 150,000 to 200,000.  It had big city amenities, skyscrapers, pedestrian friendly shopping and mass transit, yet also had quiet neighborhoods bordering the countryside.  Your right next to both the hustle and bustle of everything you could want, and the peace and quiet of nature and lazy neighborhoods. In many places in europe they recognize this populations size and model as the ideal for new growth and the new cities.  They intentionally "sprinkle" these urban nodes around the area and connect them with rail.  They lay out the new suburbs street plan, borders, and even a general, expected population size.  Your not limiting growth any more than you are here, your just distributing the growth differently. Rather than one big sprawling mess, you continue to add spots of high density nestled in countryside and connected by efficient mass transit. This is especially prevalent in northern europe and is their main "suburban growth" model.  We get what we plan for.

[swake]

Okahoma City's MSA is at 1,252,987, which is 315,509 larger then Tulsa's MSA. OKC's CSA is 1,322,429 which is 333,975 larger. Lawton's MSA is 124,098 and has no CSA.

Oklahoma's overall population is 3,751,351, of that total 61.6% live in the Tulsa or Oklahoma City areas and 64.9% live in one of the state's three metro areas.

Oklahoma is now a state where by far most of the population lives in the large metro areas. It's time for the rural areas to stop running this state.

[Conan71]

I'd agree that with denser infill rather than sprawl, a larger economic base is important and would actually allow an expansion of infrastructure.  However, Tulsa's pattern the last 30 years has been that of a city where people work then return to their suburban community to shop, eat, buy necessities, and sleep.

How do we change the attitude of those who are more prone to move to one of our suburbs and commute into the city to work to want to move to Tulsa and work in Tulsa?