Tulsa population 391,906! This is new data released by the Census. Technicaly, we fell in population, but considering we were down to like 382,000 after 9/11, that's some pretty good growth. Hopefully soon we will break the 400,000 mark.
Purely rhetorical question but why do we want to be at some sort of population goal? Regardless of Tulsa's size, we will never get the State Board of Regents to grant us a full four year university. We also struggle to maintain our infrastructure with the population base we have now.
I'm simply trying to understand why a larger population is better. I've lived in a 3mm MSA and moved back here to get away from the traffic and associated problems.
Tulsa is definitely on the upswing for the past few years, after several years of decline. I suspect growth in the southwest corner of the city has a lot to do with it, and growth from Hispanics and Asians in east Tulsa. Hopefully this decade we can start infilling midtown and downtown better before tackling the northwest corner the next decade once (if?) the Gilcrease Turnpike is built. It is too bad the city limits were drawn where they are in the southeast as that is where most of the growth was in the Tulsa area.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 15, 2011, 03:38:31 PM
I've lived in a 3mm MSA and moved back here to get away from the traffic and associated problems.
That's one of the reasons people are moving to the central part of the US. I know that it is one of the things in my searching for possible job opportunities, and I know several people that are contemplating the same ideas. We are all employed right now just looking and considering a change.
The Tulsa MSA is at 937,478 and the CSA is at 988,454. The Tulsa CSA will likely pass one million people sometime this year.
EEEEEEERRRRRRGG...
I really need to stop reading the Tulsa World comments. It just makes me mad. It seems like most of the people on there believe that Tulsa is just about the worst place in the world. Heck, opening your front door could get you shot down here...
Quote from: Conan71 on February 15, 2011, 03:38:31 PM
Purely rhetorical question but why do we want to be at some sort of population goal?
Population growth is an indicator of economic growth.
More people means a larger tax base, which either means more/better stuff or slower tax rate growth, presuming we concentrate on infill and don't further grow the city geographically.
Yes, if we grow up, not out, our taxes will get a heck of a lot more bang for the buck. It could help fund projects to further beautify our city, and improve the quality of life.
Quote from: nathanm on February 15, 2011, 07:15:13 PM
More people means a larger tax base, which either means more/better stuff or slower tax rate growth, presuming we concentrate on infill and don't further grow the city geographically.
And that is what the city should focus on this next decade. There were some major inroads made the past decade and it's important to keep the momentum. I'd rather see our growth be nearly all infill in existing areas rather than new subdivisions in the sticks which is what most of OKC's growth was over the past decade due to their insanely large city limits.
Yes, if OKC suddenly cut their city limits from 600mi down to 183mi, I think the populations of the two cities would be much closer. Where OKC does have us beat, is MSA. They have around 400,000 more people than Tulsa in their MSA.
Up, not out, Tulsa. Up, not out...
Quote from: ZYX on February 15, 2011, 09:39:31 PM
Yes, if OKC suddenly cut their city limits from 600mi down to 183mi, I think the populations of the two cities would be much closer. Where OKC does have us beat, is MSA. They have around 400,000 more people than Tulsa in their MSA.
Up, not out, Tulsa. Up, not out...
It wouldn't matter that much if OKC shrank the city limits other than changing thier population number. The fact that Oklohama County is the largest populated coutny in the state would remain the same. Even if the county lines were redrawn, it would still not change.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 15, 2011, 03:38:31 PM
Purely rhetorical question but why do we want to be at some sort of population goal? Regardless of Tulsa's size, we will never get the State Board of Regents to grant us a full four year university. We also struggle to maintain our infrastructure with the population base we have now.
I'm simply trying to understand why a larger population is better. I've lived in a 3mm MSA and moved back here to get away from the traffic and associated problems.
The trick is that if your not growing, your dying. Its hard to stay exactly the same. If anything you need to show a little constant growth for you know every city at some time or another will have some hard times in which jobs and population decrease, if your growing the decrease can just decrease the growth, if your stagnant or declining the decrease will ramp up even further. That just means your trying to maintain all that infrastructure with even fewer residents.
My goal would be to encourage future growth in Tulsa to be more condensed into pedestrian friendly/urban transit friendly "nodes" or "urban village" areas. With good, smart growth patterns you can avoid a lot of the headaches that many larger, sprawling urban areas have created.
Imagine the Tulsa of yesteryear when it was very dense and around 150,000 to 200,000. It had big city amenities, skyscrapers, pedestrian friendly shopping and mass transit, yet also had quiet neighborhoods bordering the countryside. Your right next to both the hustle and bustle of everything you could want, and the peace and quiet of nature and lazy neighborhoods. In many places in europe they recognize this populations size and model as the ideal for new growth and the new cities. They intentionally "sprinkle" these urban nodes around the area and connect them with rail. They lay out the new suburbs street plan, borders, and even a general, expected population size. Your not limiting growth any more than you are here, your just distributing the growth differently. Rather than one big sprawling mess, you continue to add spots of high density nestled in countryside and connected by efficient mass transit. This is especially prevalent in northern europe and is their main "suburban growth" model. We get what we plan for.
Okahoma City's MSA is at 1,252,987, which is 315,509 larger then Tulsa's MSA. OKC's CSA is 1,322,429 which is 333,975 larger. Lawton's MSA is 124,098 and has no CSA.
Oklahoma's overall population is 3,751,351, of that total 61.6% live in the Tulsa or Oklahoma City areas and 64.9% live in one of the state's three metro areas.
Oklahoma is now a state where by far most of the population lives in the large metro areas. It's time for the rural areas to stop running this state.
I'd agree that with denser infill rather than sprawl, a larger economic base is important and would actually allow an expansion of infrastructure. However, Tulsa's pattern the last 30 years has been that of a city where people work then return to their suburban community to shop, eat, buy necessities, and sleep.
How do we change the attitude of those who are more prone to move to one of our suburbs and commute into the city to work to want to move to Tulsa and work in Tulsa?
Quote from: Conan71 on February 16, 2011, 09:38:37 AM
How do we change the attitude of those who are more prone to move to one of our suburbs and commute into the city to work to want to move to Tulsa and work in Tulsa?
Remove the expressways.
Quote from: Townsend on February 16, 2011, 09:40:14 AM
Remove the expressways.
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.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 16, 2011, 10:22:24 AM
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.
You really think my statement was said in any seriousness?
I'd also like them to take religious movements out of Oklahoma politics. T'aint gonna happen.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 16, 2011, 09:38:37 AM
How do we change the attitude of those who are more prone to move to one of our suburbs and commute into the city to work to want to move to Tulsa and work in Tulsa?
We need better transit and to change the economics of commuting such that it ends up being less expensive to use the transit system than it is to drive a car into town every day. Part of that is making it more feasible to walk. Even where I am walkability is poor because the needs of pedestrians were pretty much forgotten as soon as the trolley was ripped out, leading to 70 years of development that ignored that need.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 16, 2011, 09:38:37 AM
I'd agree that with denser infill rather than sprawl, a larger economic base is important and would actually allow an expansion of infrastructure. However, Tulsa's pattern the last 30 years has been that of a city where people work then return to their suburban community to shop, eat, buy necessities, and sleep.
How do we change the attitude of those who are more prone to move to one of our suburbs and commute into the city to work to want to move to Tulsa and work in Tulsa?
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.
Quote from: Townsend on February 16, 2011, 10:26:19 AM
You really think my statement was said in any seriousness?
I'd also like them to take religious movements out of Oklahoma politics. T'aint gonna happen.
Sally Kern was in a story on Ch. 6 this morning... my eyes, my eyes!!!
Quote from: Conan71 on February 16, 2011, 10:55:23 AM
Sally Kern was in a story on Ch. 6 this morning... my eyes, my eyes!!!
Ugh, I know.
Anyway, on topic, I agree with Carlton.
Quote from: Townsend on February 16, 2011, 10:57:43 AM
Ugh, I know.
Anyway, on topic, I agree with Carlton.
That makes two of us. I like his solution-oriented approach.
+1 william and conan.
Population growth is important for economic growth, degelopment, and most importantly density. If you aren't growing at a min of a certain rate you aren't even retaining children that grew up here.
Tulsa has gain 100000 people AND gone backwards in density, ammenities, quality of infrastructure, mass transit, and other things as we sprawl out.
NPR had a report on Portland today. Lower wages, higher un employment, taxes are high, expensive living... but high quality of life. That's the key.
We need smart population growth.
Quote from: Townsend on February 16, 2011, 10:26:19 AM
You really think my statement was said in any seriousness?
Maybe not by you but it has been said in past threads in what appeared to be all seriousness.
I agree that transit needs to be made more usable. Good transit from the suburbs would unload many demands on roads and parking, freeing parking areas in town for something better. School improvements, or at least the reputation, are a must. I believe there has been discussion here that some of the Magnet schools are doing as good or better than some suburban schools. While I don't wish to live in an urban environment, it should be readily available for those that do. Making it affordable is another issue with many threads here.
If you want more/better public transportation options, then Tulsa needs to grow and grow a lot. The simply fact is Tulsans are not going to get out of their cars and use public transit in large numbers unless it is at least as convenient/efficient as driving. Even on a bad traffic day, it is still much quicker to drive from south Broken Arrow using 169 and the BA to get to downtown that it would be to drive to a parking lot, park and walk to a rail station, wait for a train, ride the train down the median of the BA to a station somewhere along the tracks in downtown and then walk to your office building blocks away (wouldn't that be fun in August). Of couse, that assumes everyone commuting from BA to Tulsa wants to go downtown or somewhere close to the tracks leading into downtown.
Until Tulsa's growth generates longer/more difficult commutes, it will be a tough sell to get people out of their car centric mentality. Increased infill and density in select areas of Tulsa proper will help that a lot, but such development needs more people - especially people who are not looking for suburban houses with large yards, suburban schools and towne centers. In other words, we need a lot more of the kind of people who don't live here now in large numbers.
There are more people in Tulsa than that.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on February 16, 2011, 12:46:46 PM
NPR had a report on Portland today. Lower wages, higher un employment, taxes are high, expensive living... but high quality of life. That's the key.
We need smart population growth.
Lower wages, higher un employment, taxes are high, expensive living... but high quality of life. ???? It seems like you must have left something out. Lower wages, higher unemployment, high taxes, high cost of living . . . and high quality of life? How? According to whom?
Quote from: DTowner on February 16, 2011, 02:51:55 PM
If you want more/better public transportation options, then Tulsa needs to grow and grow a lot. The simply fact is Tulsans are not going to get out of their cars and use public transit in large numbers unless it is at least as convenient/efficient as driving. Even on a bad traffic day, it is still much quicker to drive from south Broken Arrow using 169 and the BA to get to downtown that it would be to drive to a parking lot, park and walk to a rail station, wait for a train, ride the train down the median of the BA to a station somewhere along the tracks in downtown and then walk to your office building blocks away (wouldn't that be fun in August). Of couse, that assumes everyone commuting from BA to Tulsa wants to go downtown or somewhere close to the tracks leading into downtown.
Until Tulsa's growth generates longer/more difficult commutes, it will be a tough sell to get people out of their car centric mentality. Increased infill and density in select areas of Tulsa proper will help that a lot, but such development needs more people - especially people who are not looking for suburban houses with large yards, suburban schools and towne centers. In other words, we need a lot more of the kind of people who don't live here now in large numbers.
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.
Quote from: we vs us on February 16, 2011, 10:48:02 PM
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.
It's interesting that you bring up telecommuting. Here are two articles on the future of telecommuting that bring together the fact that people don't want to give up thier personal phones, wether they have a droid phone, windows phone, iphone (potentially), ipad, the new Motorola XOOM, or other device where you will be able to run two different systems, personal and work, from the same device.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/07/work-play-on-a-single-phone-lg-teams-up-with-vmware-to-deploy/# (http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/07/work-play-on-a-single-phone-lg-teams-up-with-vmware-to-deploy/#)
http://www.vmware.com/products/mobile/index.html (http://www.vmware.com/products/mobile/index.html)
You see the commercials that say "Let's go to the cloud", well with virtual software, VPN, and encrypted VPN, in the next 2 to 5 years, you will no longer have a phone, desk top pc, or home phone, and maybe to an extent a home pc, because it will be moving forward to what you have on a pc now will be stored on a server, or in a server farm somewhere else. Cisco is becoming a business solution and has eclipsed Avaya/Lucent/AT&T as a large business solution..
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.
Quote from: we vs us on February 16, 2011, 10:48:02 PM
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.
Quote from: SXSW on February 17, 2011, 08:50:47 AM
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?
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.
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.
Quote from: TeeDub on February 17, 2011, 11:09:59 AM
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.
Quote from: SXSW on February 17, 2011, 08:50:47 AM
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.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 16, 2011, 10:22:24 AM
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!
Quote from: tulsabug on February 18, 2011, 01:09:40 AM
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.
Quote from: tulsabug on February 18, 2011, 01:09:40 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: carltonplace on February 16, 2011, 10:47:24 AM
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.
Quote from: Gonesouth1234 on February 23, 2011, 08:41:50 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: SXSW on March 23, 2011, 03:48:03 PM
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.
Is anybody else sick of "small town conservative values" every election candidate claims to have? 2/3 of our population live in large urban centers....
Quote from: ZYX on March 23, 2011, 04:51:55 PM
Is anybody else sick of "small town conservative values" every election candidate claims to have? 2/3 of our population live in large urban centers....
This is Oklahoma - facts have never been worth much.
I'm not sure someone living in rural Rogers, Creek, Osage, Pawnee, Okmulgee, Washington, or Wagoner County really feels like they live in an "urban center" just because they are included in the Tulsa CSA. There are still plenty of areas of Tulsa County that look and feel pretty rural.
Quote from: ZYX on March 23, 2011, 04:51:55 PM
Is anybody else sick of "small town conservative values" every election candidate claims to have? 2/3 of our population live in large urban centers....
Tulsa and OKC are just small spots on a map compared to the Washington-Boston corridor. LA, San Francisco etc also make our 2 biggest cities look like small towns.
Edit: forgot Chicago.
Urban center was too far...but you know what I meant. Probably the majority of people live within a 40 minute drive or less of Tulsa or OKC. I don't consider that rural, or small town.
Quote from: ZYX on March 24, 2011, 04:36:21 PM
Urban center was too far...but you know what I meant. Probably the majority of people live within a 40 minute drive or less of Tulsa or OKC. I don't consider that rural, or small town.
I do.
Heck I live at 41st and Yale and still feel like I am in the sticks. Guess it depends on your perspective, and truthfully most people smack dab in the middle of Tulsa don't really live an urban lifestyle that creates any substantial difference in perspective, attitude, values etc. from someone say living in one of the suburbs.
Suburbs, small town, equals different. JMO. By your logic, you could consider 80% of the population of Dallas as living in a rural or small town area. ;)
Quote from: ZYX on March 24, 2011, 05:48:52 PM
Suburbs, small town, equals different. JMO. By your logic, you could consider 80% of the population of Dallas as living in a rural or small town area. ;)
True, but at least they have 20% that do live in an urban area and the rest have the choice and can see what its like lol.
Quote from: ZYX on March 24, 2011, 05:48:52 PM
Suburbs, small town, equals different. JMO. By your logic, you could consider 80% of the population of Dallas as living in a rural or small town area. ;)
Suburbs are closer to small town than urban. One of my Navy friends grew up in New York City. Not only did he not have a car, he never learned to drive until he was in the Navy. He didn't need or want a car in NYC. It's a totally different mind set. I see most of Tulsa as a big suburb. Take a Google Maps trip around any of the really big cities in the USA.
Quote from: Red Arrow on March 24, 2011, 09:27:24 PM
Suburbs are closer to small town than urban. One of my Navy friends grew up in New York City. Not only did he not have a car, he never learned to drive until he was in the Navy. He didn't need or want a car in NYC. It's a totally different mind set. I see most of Tulsa as a big suburb. Take a Google Maps trip around any of the really big cities in the USA.
That's funny, sometimes I actually will do that if I'm bored and have a lot of free time. About the urban vs suburban thing, I agree that most of Tulsa is similar to a suburb, but having friends that live in midtown, they seem to have a slightly more urban mindset. They spend more time downtown, and they are generally not afraid to walk on a sidewalk.
I just got back from the Gulf Coast of Florida... talk about one giant suburb. I think the MSA was 800,000 people and the sprawl was far worse in most areas than OKC. Tulsa hasn't done very well, but (sadly) we are at least better than most.
Lets hope the current trend of downtown housing and infill keeps growing so we can have a few true urban areas.
Quote from: ZYX on March 24, 2011, 09:37:51 PM
That's funny, sometimes I actually will do that if I'm bored and have a lot of free time. About the urban vs suburban thing, I agree that most of Tulsa is similar to a suburb, but having friends that live in midtown, they seem to have a slightly more urban mindset. They spend more time downtown, and they are generally not afraid to walk on a sidewalk.
Most of Bixby doesn't have a sidewalk to walk on.
Edit:
This is what I think of when someone says Urban Living.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=41-16+47th+Ave+11104&aq=&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=59.379225,129.990234&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=41-16+47th+Ave,+Queens,+New+York+11104&ll=40.741608,-73.922968&spn=0.007048,0.015868&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=40.74165,-73.922796&panoid=4BDKXyhc4dOql8winono5g&cbp=12,242.15,,0,0
Or if you aren't quite so lucky, a random pick from Philadelphia, PA.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Philadelphia,+PA&aq=0&sll=40.74165,-73.922796&sspn=0.00708,0.015868&g=41-16+47th+Ave,+Queens,+New+York+11104&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Philadelphia,+Pennsylvania&ll=39.926588,-75.177063&spn=0.007133,0.015868&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=39.926588,-75.177063&panoid=O1225rVIieOP3A1Wg_sLIw&cbp=12,88.62,,0,0
Quote from: Red Arrow on March 24, 2011, 09:51:30 PM
Most of Bixby doesn't have a sidewalk to walk on.
Edit:
This is what I think of when someone says Urban Living.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=41-16+47th+Ave+11104&aq=&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=59.379225,129.990234&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=41-16+47th+Ave,+Queens,+New+York+11104&ll=40.741608,-73.922968&spn=0.007048,0.015868&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=40.74165,-73.922796&panoid=4BDKXyhc4dOql8winono5g&cbp=12,242.15,,0,0
Or if you aren't quite so lucky, a random pick from Philadelphia, PA.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Philadelphia,+PA&aq=0&sll=40.74165,-73.922796&sspn=0.00708,0.015868&g=41-16+47th+Ave,+Queens,+New+York+11104&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Philadelphia,+Pennsylvania&ll=39.926588,-75.177063&spn=0.007133,0.015868&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=39.926588,-75.177063&panoid=O1225rVIieOP3A1Wg_sLIw&cbp=12,88.62,,0,0
Boynton has a sidewalk to nowhere paid for by the porkulus..
Quote from: Conan71 on March 24, 2011, 10:50:00 PM
Boynton has a sidewalk to nowhere paid for by the porkulus..
Lucky dogs.
What used to be the business district of Bixby had/has sidewalks.
I hate to admit it but I have seen at least 4 or 5 instances of people using the sidewalks along Memorial between the Turnpike and 111th. I wonder how many $ per walker mile that cost.
Edit:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=74008&aq=&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=59.379225,129.990234&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Bixby,+Oklahoma+74008&ll=35.942362,-95.882036&spn=0.003765,0.007934&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=35.942362,-95.882151&panoid=7dsNcsTv7SqTYvZ0Z1tiOA&cbp=12,262.67,,0,0