The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

From Tulsa World (http://"http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070628_1_A1_spanc60823")

quote:

---

Tulsa's population grew last year for the first time since the millennium, according to government estimates being released Thursday.

The increase from 2005 to 2006 was small -- 0.4 percent, or 1,400 people -- but it may portend an economic upswing for a city that's been hopeful far too long, census watchers say.

"It may sound like a small amount, but it's a positive move, and it had been negative," said Bob Ball, an economist at the Tulsa Metro Chamber.

Although symbolically significant, the growth is overshadowed by a five-year drop in Tulsa's popu lation since 2000, the starting point for this particular Census Bureau report.

The Census Bureau listed Tulsa's population at 382,872 in July 2006, down 2.6 percent from a peak of 393,049 recorded in 2000 after a decade of nearly constant growth.

Ball said the population increase last year was a direct result of economic improvement in Oklahoma. The momentum should continue alongside gains in the national economy, he added.

Shannon Walker sees young professionals moving to Tulsa and into the urban-flavored Metro Lofts that she's co-developing near the Cherry Street
area of 15th Street.

Thirteen completed six-figure lofts have been sold. An additional 39 are under construction, and many of them already have been purchased.

Walker said property in the heart of the city is sought after by locals and out-of-towners fleeing metropolises. She listed acquaintances moving to Tulsa from San Francisco, Texas and New York City.

"Tulsa is not seen as just a small town anymore," she said. "It's small, but it's diverse."

For everyone moving into Tulsa, however, handfuls are moving out to suburbs.

Jenks, Bixby and Owasso grew more from 2000 to 2006 than did any other Oklahoma cities with more than 10,000 residents, said Jeff Wallace, the director of the Census Data Center at the state Department of Commerce.

Census data show that Jenks' population increased nearly 48 percent during that period, and Bixby wasn't far behind, with a 44.7 percent-increase.

Owasso grew by 34.8 percent.

Broken Arrow didn't grow as much -- 18 percent over the same period -- but it became the state's fourth-largest city last year, overtaking Lawton.

That's no surprise to demographers who have tracked the recent exodus from city to suburbia.

Tulsa's population was siphoned by residents who left urban living for more bedrooms and bigger yards. So it was even more significant that Tulsa grew last year while its suburbs surged too.

Tulsa's geographical makeup is a factor.

People don't have to move far to be out of the city limits, which encompass 186 square miles, Wallace said. In contrast, Oklahoma City contains more than 620 square miles, he said.

The Census Bureau pegged Oklahoma City's population at 537,734.

"You can leave the core of Oklahoma City, move further out and still be in the city limits," Wallace said.

"It's hard to do that in Tulsa simply because of its physical size."

Suburban growth greatly helped the seven-county Tulsa metro area grow by 4.4 percent from 2000 to 2006, recent Census data show.

The metro-area population is nearly 900,000 and is expected to exceed 1 million in a few years.

Ball said Tulsa benefits from its nearby suburbanites.

"They still spend their money here. They still earn their money here," he said.

"Tulsa is doing the right thing to attract those who live around here to come, spend their money and contribute to the sales tax," he said.

The boom of Hispanics was another contributing factor to Tulsa's growth.

Although the latest Census estimates don't break down populations by race or nationality, previous Census Bureau reports have shown that Hispanics account for much of the state's growth in recent years.

That population growth explains more than half of Oklahoma's increase since 2000, the Census reported in May.

The state's Hispanic population increased by 38 percent during that time.

"It's safe to assume the same thing is happening in the city," Wallace said.

---

quote:

---

"Tulsa is not seen as just a small town anymore," she said. "It's small, but it's diverse."

---

I agree with that. When I moved here, I was not expecting it to be as diverse as it is. I think it is still highly segregated but I also think that is getting better too. If we continue to push things like river development and higher education, I think we will continue to see a larger younger population growth and even more diversity.

I believe thank yous are in order for those of us who have had kids in that time period.

It is good news that Tulsa has at least stabilized and while the suburbs are rapidly growing.  The growing hispanic population has definitely kept Tulsa from shrinking even further in the last years but with the new laws many may find that they have to leave. Hopefully the trend of growth will be maintained despite any exodus. I think there are many factors that will now help Tulsa to grow. River development, possible East End development and renewed interest in Downtown will help. Those things will help Tulsa's evolution into a full fleged small city with a real city feel and lifestyle, instead of being a really large town.

I would be hard pressed to see our population going down for a while with all the new high density lofts and condos going up and new housing starts everywhere from the southern most spots to the north side.

I hope to see the 400,000 mark by the 2010 census.

Is Vision 2025 to blame?

Woo hooo! we have finally made it onto the "fastest growing cities" charts. Of cities with a population of 100,000 or more we are the 146th fastest growing city in the Nation. [:P]

http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/27/real_estate/258_fastest_growing_cities/index.htm

quote:

---

Originally posted by recyclemichael

I believe thank yous are in order for those of us who have had kids in that time period.

---

Yeah it was sure fun making them.

Tulsa lost alot of population after the 2000 census. Tulsa had 393,000 people in 2000 - Today it's down to 384,000.... Omaha, Nebraska passed Tulsa in population and is now at #76, while Oklahoma City is at 73. What's wrong with this picture? What is Tulsa doing wrong?[xx(]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sauerkraut

Tulsa lost alot of population after the 2000 census. Tulsa had 393,000 people in 2000 - Today it's down to 384,000.... Omaha, Nebraska passed Tulsa in population and is now at #76, while Oklahoma City is at 73. What's wrong with this picture? What is Tulsa doing wrong?[xx(]

---

It sat on its butt and didn't do anything.  (If your not pushing forward, your falling behind) Lets hope this has changed in the last couple of years, and lets keep pushing to do more.

The downturn hit Tulsa as hard as any city, and Tulsa was not in a position to recover as quickly as some cities.  Tulsa still hasn't fully recovered the jobs it lost in 2001 and 2002.  A few more businesses, or a particular economic catalyst, and Tulsa will be primed for a significant population jump.

Barring catastrophe, we'll be in a significantly stronger position in 2009 through 2012.

Tulsa is at or near its all time record for total jobs, we have surpassed out numbers from 2001 by some 10,000 jobs.  The peak in 2001 was just shy of 420,000 jobs, going into 2007 Tulsa had 431,000 jobs (both are for Metro area).
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/metro.t03.htm

The Tulsa world published a chart using the data a while back:

(http://www.tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2007/070531_E1_spanc78514_jobs31.jpg)

But you are correct, Tulsa took a MAJOR hit in the downturn.  Which is too bad, as it appears in hindsight the city prepared itself well.  Learning from the oil bust in the 1980's Tulsa diversified into Aerospace, TeleCom, Energy Trading, and Finance.  Little did they know that 911 would cripple Aerospace, World Com and Enron would their respective industries, and that CFS was a shame.  Of all the industries to pick, they made the perfecta.  

I agree that the MSA (metro statistical area) is primed for serious growth, I hope Tulsa and developers work together to help make sure some of that growth is actually IN Tulsa.

A lot of it is type of job.  Not all were especially great, but we lost a lot (in the 1000s) of middle-low income call center jobs, good paying tech jobs and aerospace jobs.  

What we lost, we didn't get back.  We got Wal-Mart Neighborhood Markets, an extra Subway or two, a couple Lowe's, and a Best Buy.  Even aerospace, we got some back at lower wages due to outsourcing..  If you're judging economic recovery by number of Starbuck's, we've recovered.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cannon_fodder

I agree that the MSA (metro statistical area) is primed for serious growth, I hope Tulsa and developers work together to help make sure some of that growth is actually IN Tulsa.

---

The rental market here, is depressed.  Developers have continued to build inside the city, but the city has actually shrunk in population.  With some small stimulus, and prices as low as they are in the city, Tulsa will take off.  It could easily rebound to 430K without significant new construction.

The MSA doesn't need stimulus.  It it's nature to grow, outside catastrophe.  The MSA will top 1 million soon.

Good point on the quality of jobs Michael.  Certainly the engineering jobs at WilTell, the management positions at CFS, and the corporate dependability of Citgo have not been replaced.  Luckily some industries stepped in to at least provide SOME jobs.  Hopefully we can lure some higher wages to town and grow the companies we currently have.

I'll take 400,000 by 2009, that's my over under line anyway.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelC

A lot of it is type of job.  Not all were especially great, but we lost a lot (in the 1000s) of middle-low income call center jobs, good paying tech jobs and aerospace jobs.  

What we lost, we didn't get back.  We got Wal-Mart Neighborhood Markets, an extra Subway or two, a couple Lowe's, and a Best Buy.  Even aerospace, we got some back at lower wages due to outsourcing..  If you're judging economic recovery by number of Starbuck's, we've recovered.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cannon_fodder

I agree that the MSA (metro statistical area) is primed for serious growth, I hope Tulsa and developers work together to help make sure some of that growth is actually IN Tulsa.

---

The rental market here, is depressed.  Developers have continued to build inside the city, but the city has actually shrunk in population.  With some small stimulus, and prices as low as they are in the city, Tulsa will take off.  It could easily rebound to 430K without significant new construction.

The MSA doesn't need stimulus.  It it's nature to grow, outside catastrophe.  The MSA will top 1 million soon.

---

I doubt the MSA will top one million anytime soon. Perhaps not untill we are well into the 2010's. Omaha's population is well over 400,000 right now and growing fast and the metro area there is still not over one million unless you count the Lincoln, NE area too but that is not the correct way to do it. Lincoln, Nebraska has it's own MSA.

Blah blah blah

http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/CBSA-est2006-pop-chg.html

Omaha MSA 2005:  812,830
Omaha MSA 2006:  822,549
Change 1.2%

Tulsa MSA 2005: 885,778
Tulsa MSA 2006: 897,752
Change 1.4%

1,003,367 by 2014 at that rate.  I hope it speeds up, sure isn't break neck speeds.  Nonetheless, slow and steady probably leads to "better" growth.

I'd like to see consistent 2.5% area.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sauerkraut

Tulsa lost alot of population after the 2000 census. Tulsa had 393,000 people in 2000 - Today it's down to 384,000.... Omaha, Nebraska passed Tulsa in population and is now at #76, while Oklahoma City is at 73. What's wrong with this picture? What is Tulsa doing wrong?[xx(]

---

????   Oklahoma City is at #30
Omaha is #42
Tulsa is #45

I read somewhere we were 46.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cannon_fodder

1,003,367 by 2014 at that rate.  I hope it speeds up, sure isn't break neck speeds.  Nonetheless, slow and steady probably leads to "better" growth.

I'd like to see consistent 2.5% area.

---

I don't really see why you'd want the population to grow so fast. What's so good about a crowded city? More traffic, more crime, more smog, higher costs of living, higher taxes and housing shortages. I would rather be a city that is holding it's own or slightly falling in population. But, that's just me.

Because we want a bigger sales tax base.  Nevermind that it wouldn't be enough to cover extra infrastructure improvements to move all those people around though... [xx(]

Something on the order of 2% would be enough to get a snowball effect of businesses and improvements in the area.  At 1% we are just better than stagnant... and stagnant leads to the death of an area.  Consistent growth gives developers the confidence to invest, companies incentive to plan a growing business, and workers a reason to want to move here.  Think about it, when was Tulsa's greatest time - when the greatest buildings, public works, and vision for the future... the early BOOM years when population growth was well over 20%.

I am content with anything over 1%... but dropping much below that can be a very bad sign.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Something on the order of 2% would be enough to get a snowball effect of businesses and improvements in the area.  At 1% we are just better than stagnant... and stagnant leads to the death of an area.  Consistent growth gives developers the confidence to invest, companies incentive to plan a growing business, and workers a reason to want to move here.  Think about it, when was Tulsa's greatest time - when the greatest buildings, public works, and vision for the future... the early BOOM years when population growth was well over 20%.

I am content with anything over 1%... but dropping much below that can be a very bad sign.

---

You have such a better grasp of economics than I do it makes me sick... [8D]

We definitely need to shoot for better than 1 or 2% so that when any downturn happens we will have some buffer and won't go back to losing population. Better to fall from 8% to 2% than 2% to negative growth.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

We definitely need to shoot for better than 1 or 2% so that when any downturn happens we will have some buffer and won't go back to losing population. Better to fall from 8% to 2% than 2% to negative growth.

---

Any growth much above 2% annually has all it's own problems that comes with it, and above 3% annually can be a nightmare. Talk to people that actually live in Vegas for ideas on what that is like.

I short boom in the 5% range, short as in one or two years, would be difficult but manageable.  It would add 100,000 people over 2 years.  Within 5 they would all be integrated without a real problem.  

More than 5% and it is nearly unmanageable.  There is no choice but to build enormous housing blocks en mass, strip malls, and trailers for schools (think Phoenix).  Few areas can sustain the growth that Vegas managed - but few areas have the money and solid tourist economy Vegas has.

I would be excited to see amazing growth for a couple of years, but if 5% is sustained for anytime at all Tulsa would be as different a place by 2020 as Tulsa from 1900 to 1920.  In this era of McMansions, cookie cutter subdivisions, and strip malls - we would probably come out of it with much less character than we did in the early boom.

Currently we add ~13,000 a year to the MSA.  I think 2.5% at ~23,000 would be a nice range.

I'm not a population growth/city planning expert, just my humble - but thought out, opinion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

Because we want a bigger sales tax base.  Nevermind that it wouldn't be enough to cover extra infrastructure improvements to move all those people around though... [xx(]

---

The extra sales taxes won't even be a drop in the bucket to what the increase of population would suck out.. Plus, Like other posters have mentioned Do you want Tulsa to be like Phoenix or Las Vegas? They cannot even widen the streets fast enough for all the traffic. Rush hour turns everything into a parking lot you can't get anyplace. Las Vegas & Phoenix is a example of what happens when you grow fast. Then should that growth boom ever end, they will have glut of homes and apartments that can't be sold or rented since it's all over built- No Thanx, keep Tulsa as Tulsa is.

No we don't want Tulsa like Phoenix or Las Vegas.  I would like to see some population growth, beats what we had for a while which population decline.  No need to go to extremes and bring up Phoenix and Las Vegas just because some mention they do want population growth.

Remember, Tulsa in its heyday when it was touted as the most beautiful city in the US etc. had population densities more than double, even triple, what it does now. More people doesn't have to mean more problems and traffic congestion.

Good planning and development along with population growth can enhance quality of life.

The other day as I was going to work for a client in far south Tulsa I felt sorry for them as I sat in traffic getting to and from their home each day.  I imagined having to do that every day. Then though about how my grocery store is within walking distance or a 1 minute drive, how I can easily walk or drive to the movies, a restaurant, bank, bookstore, etc. and how convenient it is.  Then I thought of how awful it would be to live where they do and have to fight traffic and take more time to do all of those things, and more. Each different thing they have to do, they have to drive quite a distance and that increases traffic on everyone.

Used to be Dowtown Tulsa was a walkable district like that. You could do everything and rarely have to drive. Hopefully as more people move into the downtown area, and other midtown locations infill with higher density development we can have many areas like that again.