Tulsa population 391,906!

[nathanm]

Don't get me started on using phones for business. I'll just say that there is precisely one brand that certainly meets the requirements that most companies should have, and in some cases are legally required to have. (and it ain't Apple)

The hue and cry about being forced into that particular platform is beginning to get to corporate IT departments, so expect to hear about more high profile loss of data incidents, only it'll be phones rather than laptops that are responsible this go-round.

[SXSW]

This is the nut.  There's just simply no compelling reason for Tulsans to live closer together or to adopt the living and transportation strategies of those who live closer together.  There is no good reason.  I'm hopeful that the current swing back towards urbanism helps Tulsa reclaim some of its past and to make it more sustainable but we have to be clear that at this point in Tulsa's history this swing back towards urbanism is a fad only and will wane as generational preference and economic situations change.  

And the reason it's a fad is that it's still a choice.  We're all still talking about preference.  How the youngsters prefer a walkable city, and prefer condo living to cul de sac living, or prefer transit and bike lanes to everyone being in their car parked on the cloverleaf at 5:30pm.  These are preferences not necessities, and until they are necessities, we are all just paying lip service to passing fashion and it's just as likely that the NEXT generation of desirable young professionals will want to reclaim the cul de sacs, and hunker down in gated communities far from the skyscrapers of downtown and, you know, just telecommute.  

Most of the people I know my age (late 20's/early 30's) have no desire to live in a suburb or even south Tulsa, and several have at least one child.  They will send their kid(s) to TPS and continue living in smaller houses in midtown.  Maybe that's just the crowd I hang with and not the norm but my experience since moving back to Tulsa last April has been that midtown is where the majority of people my age not only live now but want to live permanently, and not just the singles or newlyweds but also those with kids.  Increasing this demographic is very important because while my particular neighborhood (Cherry Street/Swan Lake) may be a magnet for these types there are plenty of others in midtown that are aging quickly without the infusion of young people needed to sustain healthy neighborhoods.

[we vs us]

Most of the people I know my age (late 20's/early 30's) have no desire to live in a suburb or even south Tulsa, and several have at least one child.  They will send their kid(s) to TPS and continue living in smaller houses in midtown.  Maybe that's just the crowd I hang with and not the norm but my experience since moving back to Tulsa last April has been that midtown is where the majority of people my age not only live now but want to live permanently, and not just the singles or newlyweds but also those with kids.  Increasing this demographic is very important because while my particular neighborhood (Cherry Street/Swan Lake) may be a magnet for these types there are plenty of others in midtown that are aging quickly without the infusion of young people needed to sustain healthy neighborhoods.

Don't misunderstand: I'm that guy, too.  I live in a smaller post war bungalow in midtown, prefer walkable neighborhoods, and go out of my way to shop locally, both for goods and for food.  My wife and I are of your cohort.  She works entirely from home doing webwork, while taking care of our toddler. We will absolutely send our kid(s) to public school.  Absolutely: we are an important demographic and are the key to rejuvenating the older parts of cities across the US. 

But. 

This is all still defined by choice.  May family and I choose this lifestyle, and though we choose it for moral and ethical reasons -- especially understanding the lessons of the late Recession -- I feel like I've had to flex those convictions a bit, if only to prepare (thankfully without reason) for changing economic circumstances.   

I think that a lot of the redevelopment our generation has pushed for and been able to afford -- both on an individual level and as a political force within cities -- has been predicated on the fact that we had unlimited credit behind us.  Cheap money made this happen.  Now that that's well and truly finished, revamping our cities will become harder by several orders of magnitude.  The public coffers simply won't be there to support us, and the credit that we've used to help us buy in places that we normally wouldn't be able to has all but dried up.

I guess I'm a bit rambly here, but this is all to say that I see some very strong headwinds ahead for the new urbanism, and I feel that these stressors will really reveal our core values for what they are.  Are we a genuine movement that will be ready to make sacrifices and put our money where our collective mouth is -- not just in terms of what sort of property we buy and by the stores we shop, but in terms of what and by how much we decide our governments should support it?  Or has all of this been achievable because it's been easy to afford and the political questions have been softballs, relatively speaking? 

[Renaissance]

The first and only thing to understand about population growth is that it's a proxy for economic growth.  Tulsa is perfectly healthy but its growth won't exceed the average until there's a major economic driver.  That reason can be energy, aviation, telecommunication, financial services, rental car companies--anything--but until there are significantly more desirable jobs in Tulsa than people to fill them, there's not going to be major population growth in the city itself.

[TeeDub]

Broken Arrow outpaced Lawton as the state's fourth largest city after adding more than 23,000 residents since 2000, according to U.S. Census Bureau data released Tuesday.

The data show Broken Arrow's population increased from 74,859 to 98,850 in a 10-year span — a 32 percent growth.

Wagoner County's population also grew from 57,495 to 73,085 — a 27 percent growth. Tulsa County grew 7 percent from 563, 302 to 603,403.

[Red Arrow]

Broken Arrow outpaced Lawton as the state's fourth largest city after adding more than 23,000 residents since 2000, according to U.S. Census Bureau data released Tuesday.

The data show Broken Arrow's population increased from 74,859 to 98,850 (23991) in a 10-year span — a 32 percent growth.

Wagoner County's population also grew from 57,495 to 73,085 (15590) — a 27 percent growth. Tulsa County grew 7 percent from 563, 302 to 603,403 (40101)

Comparing percentage growth with populations an order of magnitude apart can be misleading.

[Red Arrow]

Most of the people I know my age (late 20's/early 30's) have no desire to live in a suburb or even south Tulsa, and several have at least one child.  They will send their kid(s) to TPS and continue living in smaller houses in midtown.  Maybe that's just the crowd I hang with and not the norm ...

I think your generation tends that way.  (I'm an old guy.)  The people I know your age are not tending for the huge lots and can't generally afford a McMansion even on a small lot.  They tend toward a house maybe around 2000 sq ft but on small lots in developments.  Distance from work is a factor.  I work near Jenks.  Most of my younger co-workers live in Jenks, Glenpool and across the river in south Tulsa areas unless there is another factor like family or an already owned home located near a previous job.  Many of the developments in Jenks, Glenpool, Bixby, BA and probably Owasso are as dense as or more dense than mid town. When I fly over, I see a well defined edge of density.  It's actually somewhat like Artist talks about but without the supporting small stores etc. The transportation to the next "urban center" is of course by car.

[tulsabug]

Same old arguments. 

Many jobs don't need to be in the city so if you remove the expressways, the jobs will go to the burbs.

Nuke the burbs and then salt the earth afterwards so they remain desolate. They serve no purpose other than to give soccer moms a place to build (poorly-constructed) McMansions.

/ my hate for BA, Owasso, and the rest - feel it!

[Red Arrow]

Nuke the burbs and then salt the earth afterwards so they remain desolate. They serve no purpose other than to give soccer moms a place to build (poorly-constructed) McMansions.

/ my hate for BA, Owasso, and the rest - feel it!

Yawn.  Every major city has suburbs.  Back in the days of real money, real mansions were built.  Only the rich could afford to live in the burbs.

[TheArtist]

Nuke the burbs and then salt the earth afterwards so they remain desolate. They serve no purpose other than to give soccer moms a place to build (poorly-constructed) McMansions.

/ my hate for BA, Owasso, and the rest - feel it!

 
 I know your just having a bit of fun with the "hate the suburbs" thing.  I like to throw in a good humored jibe now and then myself.  But I do like to point out that in order for Tulsa to attract more people its perfectly fine for it to have good suburban lifestyle choices for those who want it. BUT, what we really need though is balance.  For we also need to have good urban lifestyle choices for those who want that as well.

Always setting things up as "Us vrs Them"  Urban vrs Suburban, just starts people arguing.  But I have found that if you point out how its ultimately for the best that our city have great examples of both, then they see whats missing and will more likely be for making our urban areas better.  Suburban areas can be designed better, Urban areas can be designed better too. Lets create a Tulsa that we can be proud of that has wonderful examples of both.

[ZYX]

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=298&articleid=20110219_296_0_Inthep29435&allcom=1

I find this article very interesting. Who would have thought that the white kids would be in the minority? I'm not saying this in a bad way, I think it's amazing that our city is so diverse. The more diverse a city is, the more interesting it is.

[Gonesouth1234]

1. Change the perception of TPS and improve TPS so that it is a better choice than suburban school systems.
2. Provide the types of urban living choices that young people prefer
3. Improve the mass transit system to allow easy access within Tulsa city limits
4.Shout louder than the Realtors that keep pushing suburban choices over urban choices to our new comers.

Urban living is obviously not for every one, but it has an appeal in that you can be close to everything.

Agreed. 
But until the Tulsa transit system is improved to a point that it functions as a system that will actually move people into the city and around the city in a manner that is reliable, and doesn't take three hours to go 4 miles, or gas prices force the transit system to become a viable alternative for commuters and people who would like to use it, but don't want to spend the excessive amount of time it takes currently to go from point A to B, there will be no interest on the part of us Okie commuters who are spoiled with low time commutes, or require our personal vehicles for business use. 
(I think one of my former English teachers just shuddered after that last sentence.)
The other misconception that many people have of urban living in general is the safety of the household and the family.
Even if all of the points suggested by carltonplace are brought into reality; if people don't feel safe, or if the perception of some parts of the urban area, where infill growth could be a boon, is that of gangland and a high crime area, it just won't happen.
As carlton said, urban living is not for everyone, but the potential homeowner considering moving back into the urban area is greatly diminished when the person feels that the money saved on the commute would have to be spent in the purchase of ammo and security systems.

[Hoss]

Agreed. 
But until the Tulsa transit system is improved to a point that it functions as a system that will actually move people into the city and around the city in a manner that is reliable, and doesn't take three hours to go 4 miles, or gas prices force the transit system to become a viable alternative for commuters and people who would like to use it, but don't want to spend the excessive amount of time it takes currently to go from point A to B, there will be no interest on the part of us Okie commuters who are spoiled with low time commutes, or require our personal vehicles for business use. 
(I think one of my former English teachers just shuddered after that last sentence.)
The other misconception that many people have of urban living in general is the safety of the household and the family.
Even if all of the points suggested by carltonplace are brought into reality; if people don't feel safe, or if the perception of some parts of the urban area, where infill growth could be a boon, is that of gangland and a high crime area, it just won't happen.
As carlton said, urban living is not for everyone, but the potential homeowner considering moving back into the urban area is greatly diminished when the person feels that the money saved on the commute would have to be spent in the purchase of ammo and security systems.

As a metropolitan area, Tulsa just does not qualify for the kind of 'convenience' that one gets in their mass transit like metro areas much larger, say DC (Metro) and SF (Bart).  Also, since the mass of employers don't keep their offices in a central location (aka the CBD), then it also creates a bit of a problem along those lines.

I'm not saying I wouldn't love to have viable mass transit.  But, until our metro area grows to the point where it falls along the same categories as those areas I mentioned, along with increasing the percentage of people who work in the CBD, I don't see mass transit getting much better in the Tulsa metro.

[SXSW]

Tulsa CSA (which includes Tulsa, Washington, Osage, Pawnee, Creek, Okmulgee, Wagoner and Rogers counties) is now at 988,454; between Omaha (901,041) and Birmingham (1,208,452).

Oklahoma City CSA (which includes Oklahoma, Canadian, Logan, Lincoln, Cleveland, McClain, Grady and Pottawatomie counties) is now at 1,322,429; between Grand Rapids (1,321,557) and Louisville (1,427,483).

Oklahoma's 2010 population is 3,751,351 with 2,310,883 living in the areas in and around OKC and Tulsa.

[swake]

Tulsa CSA (which includes Tulsa, Washington, Osage, Pawnee, Creek, Okmulgee, Wagoner and Rogers counties) is now at 988,454; between Omaha (901,041) and Birmingham (1,208,452).

Oklahoma City CSA (which includes Oklahoma, Canadian, Logan, Lincoln, Cleveland, McClain, Grady and Pottawatomie counties) is now at 1,322,429; between Grand Rapids (1,321,557) and Louisville (1,427,483).

Oklahoma's 2010 population is 3,751,351 with 2,310,883 living in the areas in and around OKC and Tulsa.

At some point Oklahoma needs to figure out that we are an urban state now.