Urbanized Areas

[Oil Capital]

I ran across information about the Census Bureaus' definition of urban areas and thought it was interesting.  

The Census Bureau defines urbanized area as " a densely settled core of census tracts and/or census blocks that meet minimum population density requirements, along with adjacent territory containing non-residential urban land uses as well as territory with low population density included to link outlying densely settled territory with the densely settled core."   In brief, this eliminates the distortions caused by undeveloped areas that get included in population and density numbers by looking at areas within city limits and/or county lines as is the case for city numbers and metropolitan area numbers.

Tulsa's urban area had a 2010 population of 655,479 and a population density of 1951.3 per square mile.

Some other cities:
Houston:               4,944,332 - 2978.5/sq. mi
Albuquerque:          1,362,416 - 2958.5/sq. mi
Dallas-Fort Worth:  5,121,892    - 2878.9/sq. mi
Omaha:                   725,008 - 2,673.3/sq. mi
Austin:                 1,362,416    - 2604.8/sq. mi
Oklahoma City:         861,505 - 2,098.0/sq. mi
Atlanta:                4,515,419 - 1,706.9/sq. mi
Little Rock:              431,388 - 1,670.0/sq. mi
Birmingham:             749,495 - 1,414.4/sq. mi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_urban_areas

[Conan71]

I always have a hard time swallowing that density number for OKC when you look at the incorporated limits of OKC.  They stretch 14 or 15 miles east of I-35 into largely rural land and there are parts east of Midwest City and Jones as well as south of the Mid-Del area and on out west.  OKC is one of the worst examples of under-utilized sprawl I think I've ever seen.

[davideinstein]

I always have a hard time swallowing that density number for OKC when you look at the incorporated limits of OKC.  They stretch 14 or 15 miles east of I-35 into largely rural land and there are parts east of Midwest City and Jones as well as south of the Mid-Del area and on out west.  OKC is one of the worst examples of under-utilized sprawl I think I've ever seen.

It absolutely is. Jacksonville is up there as well.

[Hoss]

I always have a hard time swallowing that density number for OKC when you look at the incorporated limits of OKC.  They stretch 14 or 15 miles east of I-35 into largely rural land and there are parts east of Midwest City and Jones as well as south of the Mid-Del area and on out west.  OKC is one of the worst examples of under-utilized sprawl I think I've ever seen.

Yep, and that number taken as it is provides little context since they're considering 'urban areas'

OKC has 3 times the land area in their city limits (at just over 600 sq miles) that Tulsa does (who rings in just under 200 sq miles).  Tulsa has very little sprawl, but if you look at an OKC map which includes its city limits, the sprawl is pretty evident.  Their city limits extend out to the east nearly as far as Shawnee Reservoir.  To the west out to Page Airport and to the northeast almost out to Luther and to the northwest out to nearly Piedmont.  Much of that space is not developed.  Almost 200 sq miles if you go by the numbers in Wikipedia (which label that land area in use as urban at about 410 sq mi, leaving about 200 sq miles not developed).

[Oil Capital]

I always have a hard time swallowing that density number for OKC when you look at the incorporated limits of OKC.  They stretch 14 or 15 miles east of I-35 into largely rural land and there are parts east of Midwest City and Jones as well as south of the Mid-Del area and on out west.  OKC is one of the worst examples of under-utilized sprawl I think I've ever seen.

Re-read the post.  The urbanized area analysis ignores the city limit and county lines and analyzes the actual developed (I.e., urbanized) areas.  This is the only way to get a realistic analysis of the density of urban areas. 

Food for thought:   Let's say that after the 2010 census numbers are fully analyzed, the census bureau adds Washington County to the Tulsa metro.  Using the method of strictly following county lines and city limits, the Tulsa metro area population density would suddenly drop significantly.  But of course nothing would have changed in the real density of the urbanized area.  Using city limit and county lines for density paints a false and largely irrelevant picture.

[Conan71]

Re-read the post.  The urbanized area analysis ignores the city limit and county lines and analyzes the actual developed (I.e., urbanized) areas.  This is the only way to get a realistic analysis of the density of urban areas. 

Food for thought:   Let's say that after the 2010 census numbers are fully analyzed, the census bureau adds Washington County to the Tulsa metro.  Using the method of strictly following county lines and city limits, the Tulsa metro area population density would suddenly drop significantly.  But of course nothing would have changed in the real density of the urbanized area.  Using city limit and county lines for density paints a false and largely irrelevant picture.

Got it! There I go jumping to conclusions again. 

[TulsaRufnex]

Not really sure how you "ran across" that info, OC... It's the equivalent of me saying I "ran across" info about pro soccer...  
http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic-issues/29289-okc-population-density.html

The info is valuable, however... as long as we're talking about it in the context of neighborhood density and confine it to a narrow, technical definition of "sprawl."  

I'm gonna go with what I know....
Very little of Chicago's city limits contain "sprawl."
There are, however, literally dozens of suburbs in Chicagoland, occupying a much larger land mass than the city itself.
Some of them are older bedroom communities (Oak Park, Evanston) that have similar residential population "density" as older neighborhoods found inside the city limits of Tulsa and Oklahoma City.
Some of them are more modern suburbs like Schaumburg and Naperville that have a similar residential population "density" as south Tulsa and the Putnam City areas...

I see more similarities than differences when I compare the urban density of Mesta Park, Paseo, Heritage Hills and Nichols Hills in OKC to the neighborhoods of Florence Park, Kendall-Whittier, Maple Ridge and Utica Square in Tulsa.  I really like the Vietnamese markets and businesses north of NW23rd & Classen, while Tulsa's version developed in a more suburban-style area on the east side of town.  Individual areas of Tulsa and OKC have similar residential development patterns and density that fit the typical template for a car dependent sun belt city.

Tulsans like to tease our OKC counterparts that "We have hills."  I'd like to point out that when comparing the neighborhoods mentioned above, we Tulsans can also tease our OKC counterparts that "WE HAVE SIDEWALKS!"  

I'd imagine the reason OKC has slightly higher urban density in its developed areas would be due to the larger size and scope of "sprawling" south Tulsa (aka "Jixby") compared to similar areas around Quail Springs Mall in Okie City... I'd also imagine that if we included lower residential density areas like Bethany and Mustang as part of OKC, the statistics would be practically  identical.

That said, what I found befuddling the years I lived there and the many times I've traveled there since, are the large swaths of undeveloped land in what appears to be the middle of town.  I'd look at a city map knowing I was right in the middle of a supposedly "urban" area and see acres and acres of nothing... another point of comparison would be driving I-44 in OKC versus I-44 in Tulsa... or the Broken Arrow Expressway in Tulsa compared to Northwest Expressway in OKC.

[Oil Capital]

Not really sure how you "ran across" that info, OC... It's the equivalent of me saying I "ran across" info about pro soccer...  
http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic-issues/29289-okc-population-density.html

The info is valuable, however... as long as we're talking about it in the context of neighborhood density and confine it to a narrow, technical definition of "sprawl."  

I'm gonna go with what I know....
Very little of Chicago's city limits contain "sprawl."
There are, however, literally dozens of suburbs in Chicagoland, occupying a much larger land mass than the city itself.
Some of them are older bedroom communities (Oak Park, Evanston) that have similar residential population "density" as older neighborhoods found inside the city limits of Tulsa and Oklahoma City.
Some of them are more modern suburbs like Schaumburg and Naperville that have a similar residential population "density" as south Tulsa and the Putnam City areas...

I see more similarities than differences when I compare the urban density of Mesta Park, Paseo, Heritage Hills and Nichols Hills in OKC to the neighborhoods of Florence Park, Kendall-Whittier, Maple Ridge and Utica Square in Tulsa.  I really like the Vietnamese markets and businesses north of NW23rd & Classen, while Tulsa's version developed in a more suburban-style area on the east side of town.  Individual areas of Tulsa and OKC have similar residential development patterns and density that fit the typical template for a car dependent sun belt city.

Tulsans like to tease our OKC counterparts that "We have hills."  I'd like to point out that when comparing the neighborhoods mentioned above, we Tulsans can also tease our OKC counterparts that "WE HAVE SIDEWALKS!"  

I'd imagine the reason OKC has slightly higher urban density in its developed areas would be due to the larger size and scope of "sprawling" south Tulsa (aka "Jixby") compared to similar areas around Quail Springs Mall in Okie City... I'd also imagine that if we included lower residential density areas like Bethany and Mustang as part of OKC, the statistics would be practically  identical.

That said, what I found befuddling the years I lived there and the many times I've traveled there since, are the large swaths of undeveloped land in what appears to be the middle of town.  I'd look at a city map knowing I was right in the middle of a supposedly "urban" area and see acres and acres of nothing... another point of comparison would be driving I-44 in OKC versus I-44 in Tulsa... or the Broken Arrow Expressway in Tulsa compared to Northwest Expressway in OKC.

Apparently you need to re-read the OP too.  We are not talking about just the central cities.  Bethany and Mustang ARE included in OKC's urbanized area.  I have no idea what large swaths of undeveloped land in the middle of OKC you are talking about.  But even with those (if they do exist) OKC has higher density than Tulsa (as do Austin, Omaha, Albuquerque, DFW and Houston).

[Conan71]

Apparently you need to re-read the OP too.  We are not talking about just the central cities.  Bethany and Mustang ARE included in OKC's urbanized area.  I have no idea what large swaths of undeveloped land in the middle of OKC you are talking about.  But even with those (if they do exist) OKC has higher density than Tulsa (as do Austin, Omaha, Albuquerque, DFW and Houston).

The area just east of I-35 is not dense at all as well as some parts of northern OC before you hit Edmond come to mind.

[TulsaRufnex]

Apparently you need to re-read the OP too.  We are not talking about just the central cities.  Bethany and Mustang ARE included in OKC's urbanized area.  I have no idea what large swaths of undeveloped land in the middle of OKC you are talking about.  But even with those (if they do exist) OKC has higher density than Tulsa (as do Austin, Omaha, Albuquerque, DFW and Houston).

I'll re-read it after you apologize for saying you "ran across" info you CLEARLY POSTED on OKCTalk in March of 2012.
I also find it curious that you've been banned from that site.  Would you care to tell us why?

I lived in OKC for about ten years... I still travel there a few times a year... and I will again say that when I drive the BA Expressway, some kind of rail transit option makes alot of sense... but I admit I haven't driven all the way up Northwest Expressway to Council Rd in OKC in years.  Is there new development there that has improved its urban density?

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/40/4055000.html

Geography QuickFacts   Oklahoma City   
Land area in square miles, 2010    606.41   
Persons per square mile, 2010    956.4   

Geography QuickFacts   Tulsa   Oklahoma
Land area in square miles, 2010    196.75
Persons per square mile, 2010    1,991.9

I have occasionally read your previous posts, knowing I will often get an anti-Tulsa/pro-OKC perspective.
I can appreciate a skeptic, but don't appreciate disingenuous stuff posted regularly on a pro-Tulsa public forum.
I will argue that, while you make a good point, the higher urban density you seem to tout for OKC is statistically insignificant.   

So... why would the two largest cities in Oklahoma have urban area density closer to each other, than to any other cities in the region?
What kind of zoning/development would improve urban density to the levels we see in Austin or Omaha or Dallas?

I would argue that urban density doesn't automatically translate to "walkability."

http://www.walkscore.com/OK/Tulsa
http://www.walkscore.com/OK/Oklahoma_City

And walkability doesn't automatically translate to urban density.... discuss.

[Oil Capital]

I'll re-read it after you apologize for saying you "ran across" info you CLEARLY POSTED on OKCTalk in March of 2012.
I also find it curious that you've been banned from that site.  Would you care to tell us why?

If I've been banned on any forum any where at any time, no one has told me about it.  Even if one had posted something on another forum some months earlier, how does that mean that it had not been "run across"?

I lived in OKC for about ten years... I still travel there a few times a year... and I will again say that when I drive the BA Expressway, some kind of rail transit option makes alot of sense... but I admit I haven't driven all the way up Northwest Expressway to Council Rd in OKC in years.  Is there new development there that has improved its urban density?

Not sure, and not sure of the importance.  The Northwest Expressway corridor is certainly similar to the 71st Street corridor in urban density.  I'm not really seeing a great deal more urban density along the BA either, but, if you do, that's great.  The numbers are what they are.   Were you going to share with us where all of the undeveloped land in the middle of Oklahoma City is located?

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/40/4055000.html

Geography QuickFacts   Oklahoma City   
Land area in square miles, 2010    606.41   
Persons per square mile, 2010    956.4   

Geography QuickFacts   Tulsa   Oklahoma
Land area in square miles, 2010    196.75
Persons per square mile, 2010    1,991.9

Yawn.  Who cares?  These numbers are completely irrelevant to any analysis of the urban density of the two cities (or for that matter, any city).

I have occasionally read your previous posts, knowing I will often get an anti-Tulsa/pro-OKC perspective.
I can appreciate a skeptic, but don't appreciate disingenuous stuff posted regularly on a pro-Tulsa public forum.
I will argue that, while you make a good point, the higher urban density you seem to tout for OKC is statistically insignificant.   

I did not by any stretch of any reasonably imagination "tout" or "seem to tout" OKC's higher urban density.  I merely put together a list of regional and similar-sized cities and some I thought were interesting (mainly Atlanta).  It was you who focused solely on OKC, not me.

So... why would the two largest cities in Oklahoma have urban area density closer to each other, than to any other cities in the region?
What kind of zoning/development would improve urban density to the levels we see in Austin or Omaha or Dallas?

Interesting questions.  Any thoughts?

I would argue that urban density doesn't automatically translate to "walkability."

http://www.walkscore.com/OK/Tulsa
http://www.walkscore.com/OK/Oklahoma_City

And walkability doesn't automatically translate to urban density.... discuss.

Of course no one suggested that urban density automatically translates into "walkability" or vice versa.  Do you have thoughts on the matter, or did you just want to be snarky?   (The Walk Score city average is flawed in that it covers all areas within a city limits, not just urbanized areas.  My guess is that if apples were compared to apples, urban density would come much closer to automatically translating into "walkability").   Let's do some apples-to-apples comparisons of reasonably comparable neighborhoods in OKC and Tulsa and see how their "walkability" compares.  

Downtown OKC:  89
Downtown Tulsa: 74

Zip Code 73103 (Mesta Park area) OKC: 66
Riverview Tulsa:                                   69

Zip Code 73106 (Putnam Heights area) OKC:  64
Maple Ridge area Tulsa:                                55

Zip Code 73118 (Crown Heights/Edgemere Heights area) OKChttp://www.walkscore.com/OK/Oklahoma_City/73118:  59
Florence Park Tulsahttp://www.walkscore.com/OK/Tulsa/Florence_Park:                                                                   60
Cherry Street Tulsa http://www.walkscore.com/OK/Tulsa/Cherry_Street:                                                                  71


                                                     

[Oil Capital]

The area just east of I-35 is not dense at all as well as some parts of northern OC before you hit Edmond come to mind.

Maybe it was just me jumping to conclusions, but when TulsaRufNex has repeatedly spoken of the large swaths of undeveloped land in the middle of town I presumed he meant somewhere near the middle of town.  There are plenty of areas in Tulsa comparable to what you are describing.

[TulsaRufnex]

If I've been banned on any forum any where at any time, no one has told me about it.  Even if one had posted something on another forum some months earlier, how does that mean that it had not been "run across"?

Well, if it says "banned" under your moniker on OKCtalk, I'm not sure what other conclusion could be made.
And yes, posting the EXACT SAME INFO in March 2012, and then posting you happened to "run across" the very same info here sounds a bit disingenuous.
http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic-issues/29289-okc-population-density.html

Not sure, and not sure of the importance.  The Northwest Expressway corridor is certainly similar to the 71st Street corridor in urban density.  I'm not really seeing a great deal more urban density along the BA either, but, if you do, that's great.  The numbers are what they are.

I'd disagree.  The 71st Street corridor corresponds more closely to the Quail Springs Mall/Memorial Rd/Kilpatrick Turnpike corridor.  Those areas were developed around the same time span with similar mixes of shopping malls and residential.  The reason I compare the BA to NW Expressway is because both extend from older, higher density to lower, more recent density and were developed in a similar time frame.  Not a perfect comparison since NW Expressway doesn't extend all the way to downtown OKC but pretty close.

Yawn.  Who cares?  These numbers are completely irrelevant to any analysis of the urban density of the two cities (or for that matter, any city).

I'd speculate enough Tulsans care about the statistic that it bothers you.
Jacksonville, FL has a similar problem.  Kudos to you for finding stats that differentiate urban "sprawl" in particular from "spread-out" in general.
When I think of "spread-out," I picture the drive from OKC's W. Reno or NW10th St downtown going west to Rockwell Ave... I don't count the miles of non-urbanized areas west of that...

I did not by any stretch of any reasonably imagination "tout" or "seem to tout" OKC's higher urban density.  I merely put together a list of regional and similar-sized cities and some I thought were interesting (mainly Atlanta).  It was you who focused solely on OKC, not me.
Interesting questions.  Any thoughts?
Of course no one suggested that urban density automatically translates into "walkability" or vice versa.  Not sure what there is to discuss.  Do you have thoughts on the matter?

dis·in·gen·u·ous
/ˌdisinˈjenyo͞oəs/
Adjective
Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.

[Oil Capital]

Well, if it says "banned" under your moniker on OKCtalk, I'm not sure what other conclusion could be made.
And yes, posting the EXACT SAME INFO in March 2012, and then posting you happened to "run across" the very same info here sounds a bit disingenuous.
http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic-issues/29289-okc-population-density.html

I'd disagree.  The 71st Street corridor corresponds more closely to the Quail Springs Mall/Memorial Rd/Kilpatrick Turnpike corridor.  Those areas were developed around the same time span with similar mixes of shopping malls and residential.  The reason I compare the BA to NW Expressway is because both extend from older, higher density to lower, more recent density and were developed in a similar time frame.  Not a perfect comparison since NW Expressway doesn't extend all the way to downtown OKC but pretty close.

I'd speculate enough Tulsans care about the statistic that it bothers you.
Jacksonville, FL has a similar problem.  Kudos to you for finding stats that differentiate urban "sprawl" in particular from generally "spread-out."
When I think of "spread-out," I picture the drive from OKC's W. Reno or NW10th St downtown going west to Rockwell Ave... I don't count the miles of non-urbanized areas west of that...

dis·in·gen·u·ous
/ˌdisinˈjenyo͞oəs/
Adjective
Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.

You know, my moniker "Oil Capital" is not all that creative.  Believe it or not, someone else in Oklahoma came up with that name as well.  It is not me.  I am not even a member of the OKCTalk forum.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make regarding the BA vs. Northwest Expressway.  Is the  BA really your evidence of Tulsa's superior density and walkability?

Trust me, i know Tulsans care about the city limits statistics, not because it is at all meaningful, but because it supports their mythology that Tulsa is in all ways more urban than OKC.  Funny thing, when the actual developed urban areas are compared they are quite similar (OKC slightly more dense).  And even when we do an apples to apples comparison of your preferred Walkability scores, it turns out the two cities are quite similar.  I know it is difficult for Tulsans to accept, but those are the facts.  Continuing to live in the land of denial will get you nowhere.

[Conan71]

Maybe it was just me jumping to conclusions, but when TulsaRufNex has repeatedly spoken of the large swaths of undeveloped land in the middle of town I presumed he meant somewhere near the middle of town.  There are plenty of areas in Tulsa comparable to what you are describing.

There's also some areas north of roughly Hefner and west of I-35 which are still surprisingly under-developed.  I remember going to visit friends in OKC when I was going to school at OSU in the mid '80's and marveling at all these 4 lane roads in north OKC which had little, if any commercial or residential development at the time and thinking Tulsa was stupid for not having done that before the development to the south exploded.  Of course, I've had it explained many times as to the failure of the original Eastland Shopping center failure in the early 1970's was that it was expected that Tulsa's growth was most definitely east since growth to the south would be cut off by the Arkansas River, so that may well explain the  apparent lack of planning on south Tulsa arterials.