Tulsa sees population growth

[MichaelC]

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%

[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.

[Oil Capital]

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

[Double A]

I read somewhere we were 46.

[sauerkraut]

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.

[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(]

[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.

[Conan71]

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]

[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.

[swake]

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.

[cannon_fodder]

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.

[sauerkraut]

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.

[TheArtist]

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.