Bizjournals recently published projections of metro populations through 2025.
About Tulsa, they said:
"Next up is Fresno, Calif., which is projected to hit seven figures in April 2015. It will be followed by Bakersfield, Calif.; Cape Coral-Fort Myers, Fla.; McAllen-Edinburg, Texas; Albuquerque; and Tulsa.
The latter [Tulsa] is expected to hit 1 million in July 2025, just a few days after its projected July 1 population of 999,753."
Their projections have us moving from the 55th most populous metro area to no. 58.
I thought that we were projected to hit 1 million sometime between 2010 and 2012. I can't remember where I saw that though...
The 2010 - 2012 number came from the Census Department:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070405_1_A1_hThes35833
During the less census period we grew at 4.4%. If that was a constant growth rate we'd hit the 1mil mark in the 2-3 year time frame they are mentioning. Several factors could alter it of course: different projections, different stat area, stupid presumptions.
1mil is a fun number. Too bad it is so damn spread out.
Tulsa had it's city population passed by Omaha, NE many years ago. Omaha's city population is around 415,000 today while Tulsa's is around 385,000, The metro area of Tulsa is larger than Omaha's. The thing that really counts is the Metro area. Salt Lake City is a tiny city with population under 200,000 but the metro area is over a million.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on June 11, 2009, 08:29:40 AM
The 2010 - 2012 number came from the Census Department:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070405_1_A1_hThes35833
During the less census period we grew at 4.4%. If that was a constant growth rate we'd hit the 1mil mark in the 2-3 year time frame they are mentioning. Several factors could alter it of course: different projections, different stat area, stupid presumptions.
1mil is a fun number. Too bad it is so damn spread out.
That TW article was complete and utter nonsense. I don't know what numbers they were using, but they weren't US Census Bureau numbers.
According to the US Census, Tulsa metro's population in 2006 was 891,185, not the 897,752 stated in the article. According to the US Census, the population as of April 1, 2000 was 859,532. That gives us a growth for those six years and 3 months of 3.7% NOT 4.4%. But to correctly project forward, we have to use the same time periods, so we need to start at July 1, 2000, not April 1, 2000. That gives us a 6-year growth rate of 3.5%
NOTE, the 4.4% growth that is incorrectly cited in the TW article is the total growth for the six-year period. It is NOT an annual rate. Thus, even if we correctly apply the TW's mysterious and incorrect numbers, we wouldn't get to 1 Million until about 2020. If we apply the correct 3.5% rate, it's more like 2025. I have never seen a reasonable projection based on correct numbers that has the Tulsa metro passing 1,000,000 within the next five years.
The Bizjournals study was based on US Census Bureau numbers and estimates. Here is a link to the methodology:
http://www.bizjournals.com/specials/pages/253.html
Quote from: sauerkraut on June 11, 2009, 09:19:31 AM
Tulsa had it's city population passed by Omaha, NE many years ago. Omaha's city population is around 415,000 today while Tulsa's is around 385,000, The metro area of Tulsa is larger than Omaha's. The thing that really counts is the Metro area. Salt Lake City is a tiny city with population under 200,000 but the metro area is over a million.
Omaha, the 60th largest municipality in the USA
Quoteestimated population of 829,890 residing in eight counties
Tulsa, the 45th largerst municipality in the USA
Quotethe principal municipality of the Tulsa Metropolitan Statistical Area, a region of 905,755 residents
Quote from: joiei on June 14, 2009, 12:04:46 AM
Omaha, the 60th largest municipality in the USA
Tulsa, the 45th largerst municipality in the USA
Where'd you come up with that one? As of the 2008 estimates, Tulsa is the 53rd largest metropolitan area in the USA.
Quote from: Oil Capital on June 14, 2009, 11:02:16 AM
Where'd you come up with that one? As of the 2008 estimates, Tulsa is the 53rd largest metropolitan area in the USA.
Read again OC; municipality as in CITY, not metro.
And that is accurate as of the 2007 estimate
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763098.html
Quote from: Hoss on June 14, 2009, 12:18:51 PM
Read again OC; municipality as in CITY, not metro.
And that is accurate as of the 2007 estimate
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763098.html
Good point. However, intentionally or not, joiei's post was seriously misleading. it mixed Omaha's metro ranking (and mislabeling it a municipality ranking) with Tulsa's municipality ranking, and showing both cities' metro populations. (Omaha is NOT the 60th largest municipality; it is the 60th largest metro area. Omaha, in 2007 was the 42nd largest municipality, three slots above Tulsa.)
For the record as of the latest census numbers, the Tulsa and Omaha rankings are:
Metro: Tulsa: 53
Omaha: 60
Municipality: Tulsa: 45
Omaha: 42
New Business Journals metro population projections http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/news/2017/01/11/population-milestones-loom-for-25-major-u-s.html:
Especially noteworthy are the projected elevations of Tulsa (Nov. 26) and Fresno (Dec. 15) to populations of 1 million, making them the 55th and 56th U.S. metros to cross the seven-figure threshold.
Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston are expected to be the nation's most prolific markets, each hitting a pair of milestones. The odometer for Dallas-Fort Worth is projected to show a population of 7.3 million in mid-January, as noted above, followed by 7.4 million on Oct. 21. The milestones for Houston are 6.9 million on March 13 and 7.0 million on Nov. 17.
Oklahoma City metro projected to hit 1.4 million on September 10.