The census released the new growth estimates for 2011 and Tulsa's MSA grew to 946,962 as of July 2011. Tulsa's Consolidated Statistical Area which includes Washington county stood at 998,438 people as of July and likely passed one million sometime in the second half of last year.
8)
Can anyone find any info on what Tulsa City and Tulsa County population is now? For some reason I have a devil of a time navigating the government census websites.
2012 numbers
Tulsa City 391,367
TulsaCounty unincorporated 34,828
Broken Arrow 100,419
Collinsville 5,686
Glenpool 10,953
Jenks 17,186
Owasso 29,092
Sand Springs 19,911
Total Tulsa County 609,442
Quote from: TheArtist on April 05, 2012, 11:35:11 AM
Can anyone find any info on what Tulsa City and Tulsa County population is now? For some reason I have a devil of a time navigating the government census websites.
Tulsa County is at 610,599.
I don't think they have released the estimates for cities yet.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on April 05, 2012, 12:20:15 PM
2012 numbers
Tulsa City 391,367
TulsaCounty unincorporated 34,828
Broken Arrow 100,419
Collinsville 5,686
Glenpool 10,953
Jenks 17,186
Owasso 29,092
Sand Springs 19,911
Total Tulsa County 609,442
\
Bixby? It's in Tulsa Co. too.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 05, 2012, 12:49:33 PM
Bixby? It's in Tulsa Co. too.
As is Skiatook.
And Sperry, for that matter.
Skiatook (2010 Census): 7,397
Sperry (2010 Census): 1,206
Granted, not all of Skiatook is in Tulsa County, but Skiatook
is a part of Tulsa County.
My bad.
Bixby is 21,187.
Some of the Broken Arrow population is Wagoner County.
Skiatook, Sperry, and other towns are included in Tulsa County's number.
My numbers come from INCOG. They use databases from utility companies combined with census numbers to be as accurate as possible.
1 million is a nice milestone, but we are still growing slower as a % than OKC area - a trend I would like to see reversed .
Quote from: RecycleMichael on April 05, 2012, 12:20:15 PM
2012 numbers
Tulsa City 391,367
TulsaCounty unincorporated 34,828
Broken Arrow 100,419
Collinsville 5,686
Glenpool 10,953
Jenks 17,186
Owasso 29,092
Sand Springs 19,911
Total Tulsa County 609,442
I hope those numbers aren't true. If so then Tulsa is shrinking.
Quote from: DTowner on April 05, 2012, 03:30:46 PM
1 million is a nice milestone, but we are still growing slower as a % than OKC area - a trend I would like to see reversed .
I hope you can put them all downtown. We don't need any more traffic/housing out here.
Quote from: DTowner on April 05, 2012, 03:30:46 PM
1 million is a nice milestone, but we are still growing slower as a % than OKC area - a trend I would like to see reversed .
Difference is that OKC has a lot more fenceline to fill in than we do. We can't really expand much more than we are now.
Quote from: ZYX on April 05, 2012, 05:34:56 PM
I hope those numbers aren't true. If so then Tulsa is shrinking.
What were the previous numbers? Last thing I had seen was a demographic break down of the population numbers. If it hadn't been for the Hispanic numbers increasing, we would indeed have lost population. So thats why I was curious as to what the latest figures were.
Quote from: Markk on April 05, 2012, 08:18:40 PM
that's awesome?
Should I stick with a 90+ something trash dumpster, or go with something smaller?
I'm guessing you replied to the wrong subject...
Quote from: TheArtist on April 05, 2012, 08:15:29 PM
What were the previous numbers? Last thing I had seen was a demographic break down of the population numbers. If it hadn't been for the Hispanic numbers increasing, we would indeed have lost population. So thats why I was curious as to what the latest figures were.
As of 2010 the population of Tulsa was 391,906. It troubles me that our growth has completely stagnated. I don't think we need, nor do I want, massive amounts of growth, but a city not growing at least a little will eventually begin to die.
The growth seems to have been in the burbs though. With the increased demand for housing in the core though (and supply VERY slowly coming along) I think we will see the trend reversed soon.
the census number for cities for July 2011 come out in June. I don't know what RM's numbers are, but they aren't census numbers.
The SW side likely accounted for much of that growth. Midtown seems to be growing with infill and singles/young couples but families still overwhelmingly prefer the suburbs due to the better schools.
Quote from: SXSW on April 05, 2012, 10:23:50 PM
The SW side likely accounted for much of that growth. Midtown seems to be growing with infill and singles/young couples but families still overwhelmingly prefer the suburbs due to the better schools.
Better schools and more affordable/newer housing stock.
Maybe better school facilities but not necessarily better schools. Just like churches, its the people that make the church, not the buildings.
All cities expand to suburbs just like waistlines in middle age. In my lifetime that is a given. Even if downtown becomes wildly successful it won't reverse that practice unless something catastrophic happens like midtown being walled off and its school system privatized by Jesuit Priests. :)
And really, who cares about the city population when the cities and counties are so closely situated. It just leads to false assumptions about growth and movement of populations. For instance I read a headline a few days ago about how crime had dropped in one of the outlying cities. I think it was Glenpool. Yet upon reading the individual stats the city really only had a decrease in larceny which is a pointless crime as far as successful arrest and prosecution. People just give up on reporting a theft of bicycles, mowers etc. because they know the futility of ever getting the stuff back. It goes on C-list or Pawnshops and disappears quickly. So, larcenies dropped. Otherwise the city had an increase in murders (from 0 to 1) while everything else stayed static. City/county/metro population figures are prone to the same false assumptions.
Quote from: Hoss on April 05, 2012, 06:08:10 PM
Difference is that OKC has a lot more fenceline to fill in than we do. We can't really expand much more than we are now.
We're talking metropolitan area population here. Tulsa's and OKC's city limits are not relevant.
For the record, according to the just-released Census estimates. Tulsa MSA's growth rate was 1.1%. OKC MSA's growth rate was 2%.
Quote from: Oil Capital on April 06, 2012, 11:21:14 AM
We're talking metropolitan area population here. Tulsa's and OKC's city limits are not relevant.
For the record, according to the just-released Census estimates. Tulsa MSA's growth rate was 1.1%. OKC MSA's growth rate was 2%.
That was the point I was trying to make. For a host of reasons, MSA size matters. We are not only smaller than OKC, but the gap is widening every year. I think that is a problem and it should be a concern.
Quote from: Oil Capital on April 06, 2012, 11:21:14 AM
We're talking metropolitan area population here. Tulsa's and OKC's city limits are not relevant.
For the record, according to the just-released Census estimates. Tulsa MSA's growth rate was 1.1%. OKC MSA's growth rate was 2%.
But the point I'M making is that there is more developable land within the OKC city fenceline, so they can accelerate growth more, since we have to depend more on infill as it pertains to OUR city limits. You do know that the city populations are included in the metro, right?
Quote from: AquaMan on April 06, 2012, 10:03:05 AM
Maybe better school facilities but not necessarily better schools. Just like churches, its the people that make the church, not the buildings.
Perfectly stated.
2012 metropolitan area population estimates were released by the Census Bureau today:
Tulsa Metro
2010 Census (April 1, 2010): 937,478
2010 Estimate (July 1, 2010): 939,968
2011 Estimate (July 1, 2011): 945,386 +0.6%
2012 Estimate (July 1, 2012): 951,880 +0.7%
Quote from: Oil Capital on March 14, 2013, 10:24:38 AM
2012 metropolitan area population estimates were released by the Census Bureau today:
Tulsa Metro
2010 Census (April 1, 2010): 937,478
2010 Estimate (July 1, 2010): 939,968
2011 Estimate (July 1, 2011): 945,386 +0.6%
2012 Estimate (July 1, 2012): 951,880 +0.7%
More interesting, Tulsa's CSA passed one million and now the US Census has expanded the CSA to include Muskogee. The new Tulsa-Muskogee-Bartlesville CSA now has a population 1,122,259.
With the same numbers Oklahoma City's CSA is closing in on 1.4 million with 1,367,325 and the Dallas Ft Worth CSA has now grown into Oklahoma and has 7,095,411.
http://www.census.gov/popest/data/metro/totals/2012/index.html
Quote from: swake on March 14, 2013, 10:27:55 AM
Dallas Ft Worth CSA has now grown into Oklahoma and has 7,095,411.
So I do live in North Dallas.
Quote from: swake on March 14, 2013, 10:27:55 AM
More interesting, Tulsa's CSA passed one million and now the US Census has expanded the CSA to include Muskogee. The new Tulsa-Muskogee-Bartlesville CSA now has a population 1,122,259.
With the same numbers Oklahoma City's CSA is closing in on 1.4 million with 1,367,325 and the Dallas Ft Worth CSA has now grown into Oklahoma and has 7,095,411.
http://www.census.gov/popest/data/metro/totals/2012/index.html
That
is interesting. I look forward to the seeing the population density of the Tulsa CSA from those of you who think the only population density numbers that matter are the ones that follow political boundary lines. ;-)
Quote from: Oil Capital on March 14, 2013, 12:11:09 PM
That is interesting. I look forward to the seeing the population density of the Tulsa CSA from those of you who think the only population density numbers that matter are the ones that follow political boundary lines. ;-)
Considering it includes Osage county which is nearly the size of Rhode Island it won't be real high.
Thats some pretty tepid growth. Barely growth at all. Bout 6 thousandish per year for the entire metro?
Wonder what the city proper part of that is? One would hope to see at least 1 thou a year in and around downtown.
Course even slow growth is ok as long as average incomes/educational levels also continue to climb relative to other areas. Kind of a "quality over quantity" sort of thing.
Quote from: swake on March 14, 2013, 10:27:55 AM
More interesting, Tulsa's CSA passed one million and now the US Census has expanded the CSA to include Muskogee. The new Tulsa-Muskogee-Bartlesville CSA now has a population 1,122,259.
http://www.census.gov/popest/data/metro/totals/2012/index.html
Jeez, why not just divide the state in two and say everything is in either OKC and Tulsa's CSA.
Quote from: Townsend on March 14, 2013, 10:39:47 AM
So I do live in North Dallas.
No. You don't. They all live in Baja Oklahoma!!
Quote from: swake on March 14, 2013, 10:27:55 AM
More interesting, Tulsa's CSA passed one million and now the US Census has expanded the CSA to include Muskogee. The new Tulsa-Muskogee-Bartlesville CSA now has a population 1,122,259.
http://www.census.gov/popest/data/metro/totals/2012/index.html
According to the Census the new Tulsa-Muskogee-Bartlesville, OK Combined Statistic Area encompasses:
Bartlesville, OK Micropolitan Statistical Area
Muskogee, OK Micropolitan Statistical Area
Tahlequah, OK Micropolitan Statistical Area
Tulsa, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area
I assume that means they have added Cherokee County, as well as Muskogee County. But with just the Tulsa Metropolitan and Bartlesville Micropolitan areas the 2012 Tulsa CSA would be 1,003,513. The expansion makes it 1,122,259, as quoted above.
The seven county Tulsa Metro is at 951,880 for 2012, but the link below estimates it at 960,480 as of January 1, 2013, with a projected milestone of 970,000 by January 2014. The Wikipedia entry for the Tulsa Metropolitan Area also uses the 960,480 number as its 2013 estimate. However, the projections reported in bizjournals were made in January 2013, well before the 2012 census estimates came out in March 2013.
http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/on-numbers/scott-thomas/2013/01/portland-leads-parade-of-metros.html?page=all&appSession=035109944859823
The Census Bureau released 2015 metro area population estimates today:
Tulsa metro population as of July 1, 2015: 981,005, increase of 10,898 from 2014. 2014-15 growth rate: 1.123% 2010-2015 growth rate: 4.365%
Other regional cities (in order by 2014-15 growth rate:
Austin: 2015: 2,000,860... increase of 57,395. 2014-15 growth rate: 2.953%. 2010-2015 growth rate: 15.816%
Houston: 2015: 6,656,947.. increase of 159,083. 2014-15 growth rate: 2.45%. 2010-2015 growth rate: 11.914%
San Antonio: 2015: 2,384,075. increase of 51,285. 2014-15 growth rate: 2.198%. 2010-2015 growth rate: 10.722%
Denver: 2015: 2,814,330... increase of 58,474. 2014-15 growth rate: 2.122%. 2010-2015 growth rate: 10.173%
DFW: 2015: 7,102,796... increase of 144,704. 2014-15 growth rate: 2.08%. 2010-2015 growth rate: 10.076%
Des Moines: 2015: 622,899... increase of 10,743. 2014-15 growth rate: 1.755%. 2010-2015 growth rate: 8.902%
Oklahoma City: 2015: 1,358,452... increase of 20,833. 2014-15 growth rate: 1.557%. 2010-2015 growth rate: 7.989%
Tulsa: 2015: 981,005... increase of 10,989. 2014-15 growth rate: 1.123%. 2010-2015 growth rate: 4.365%
Omaha: 2015: 915,312.... increase of 10,045. 2014-15 growth rate: 1.11%. 2010-2015 growth rate: 5.43%
Kansas City: 2015: 2,087,471... increase of 16,188. 2014-15 growth rate: 0.782%. 2010-2015 growth rate: 3.663%
Wichita: 2015: 644,610.. increase of 3,130. 2014-15 growth rate: 0.488%. 2010-2015 growth rate: 2.010%
Little Rock: 2015: 731,612.. increase of 2,652. 2014-15 growth rate: 0.364%. 2010-2015 growth rate: 4.157%
Quote from: Oil Capital on March 24, 2016, 12:38:13 PM
The Census Bureau released 2015 metro area population estimates today:
Tulsa metro population as of July 1, 2015: 981,005, increase of 10,898 from 2014. 2014-15 growth rate: 1.123% 2010-2015 growth rate: 4.365%
Other regional cities (in order by 2014-15 growth rate:
Austin: 2015: 2,000,860... increase of 57,395. 2014-15 growth rate: 2.953%. 2010-2015 growth rate: 15.816%
Houston: 2015: 6,656,947.. increase of 159,083. 2014-15 growth rate: 2.45%. 2010-2015 growth rate: 11.914%
San Antonio: 2015: 2,384,075. increase of 51,285. 2014-15 growth rate: 2.198%. 2010-2015 growth rate: 10.722%
Denver: 2015: 2,814,330... increase of 58,474. 2014-15 growth rate: 2.122%. 2010-2015 growth rate: 10.173%
DFW: 2015: 7,102,796... increase of 144,704. 2014-15 growth rate: 2.08%. 2010-2015 growth rate: 10.076%
Des Moines: 2015: 622,899... increase of 10,743. 2014-15 growth rate: 1.755%. 2010-2015 growth rate: 8.902%
Oklahoma City: 2015: 1,358,452... increase of 20,833. 2014-15 growth rate: 1.557%. 2010-2015 growth rate: 7.989%
Tulsa: 2015: 981,005... increase of 10,989. 2014-15 growth rate: 1.123%. 2010-2015 growth rate: 4.365%
Omaha: 2015: 915,312.... increase of 10,045. 2014-15 growth rate: 1.11%. 2010-2015 growth rate: 5.43%
Kansas City: 2015: 2,087,471... increase of 16,188. 2014-15 growth rate: 0.782%. 2010-2015 growth rate: 3.663%
Wichita: 2015: 644,610.. increase of 3,130. 2014-15 growth rate: 0.488%. 2010-2015 growth rate: 2.010%
Little Rock: 2015: 731,612.. increase of 2,652. 2014-15 growth rate: 0.364%. 2010-2015 growth rate: 4.15
Looks like Houston and Austin are cooling down some. Growth in some of the cities like Wichita and Little Rock would indicate virtually no one is moving there, just more people being born.
A friend of mine is fond of saying: "Wichita is where things that suck go to feel better about themselves."
looks like we are just a couple of rednecks better than Little Rock.
(http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/simpsons/images/5/58/Cletus_Spuckler.png/revision/latest?cb=20130424153830)
Quote from: Conan71 on March 24, 2016, 01:48:53 PM
...Growth in some of the cities like Wichita and Little Rock would indicate virtually no one is moving there, just more people being born.
A friend of mine is fond of saying: "Wichita is where things that suck go to feel better about themselves."
Careful there. Tulsa is only slightly above Wichita in this regard. Your statistics statement is dangerously close to being accurate.
The health data is kept by the County, not the MSA... but Tulsa County sees about 10k births per year, and only 5300 deaths. So if the people born in Tulsa County stayed in Tulsa County, we would grow by 5,000 people per year. For the entire state, the birth rate is ~15.1 per 1k. The death rate is ~10 per 1k. Tulsa has a higher Hispanic population, and thus a higher birth rate that often goes along with that demographic.
Anyway, extending the State data to the rest of Tulsa Metro's ~360k people that live outside the County and we have:
5,400 births
3,600 deaths
- - - - - -
1,800 net
Add in the 5k net births in Tulsa county and we are up to 6,800 net just from people being born and dying. So other than people being born here, we gained ~3200 people. The good news is we are still crushing the national growth rate of 1%.
The only reason I care about growth is for more opportunity, more diversity, and better development. It is hard to develop new condos and restaurants downtown if there are houses abandoned (and therefore cheap) in Jenks. Growth for the sake of growth is a zero sum game.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 24, 2016, 01:48:53 PM
A friend of mine is fond of saying: "Wichita is where things that suck go to feel better about themselves."
Co workers were wondering why I snorted after I read that. Well done, friend of Conan!
Quote from: Hoss on March 24, 2016, 04:00:35 PM
Co workers were wondering why I snorted after I read that. Well done, friend of Conan!
Me too! Read it to the office and all appreciated that - we have a branch there that "lives the dream"....
Quote from: cannon_fodder on March 24, 2016, 03:40:06 PM
Careful there. Tulsa is only slightly above Wichita in this regard. Your statistics statement is dangerously close to being accurate.
The health data is kept by the County, not the MSA... but Tulsa County sees about 10k births per year, and only 5300 deaths. So if the people born in Tulsa County stayed in Tulsa County, we would grow by 5,000 people per year. For the entire state, the birth rate is ~15.1 per 1k. The death rate is ~10 per 1k. Tulsa has a higher Hispanic population, and thus a higher birth rate that often goes along with that demographic.
Anyway, extending the State data to the rest of Tulsa Metro's ~360k people that live outside the County and we have:
5,400 births
3,600 deaths
- - - - - -
1,800 net
Add in the 5k net births in Tulsa county and we are up to 6,800 net just from people being born and dying. So other than people being born here, we gained ~3200 people. The good news is we are still crushing the national growth rate of 1%.
The only reason I care about growth is for more opportunity, more diversity, and better development. It is hard to develop new condos and restaurants downtown if there are houses abandoned (and therefore cheap) in Jenks. Growth for the sake of growth is a zero sum game.
Here are the real census numbers, they aren't that bad, nothing compared to Wichita. Where we actually seem weakest is Natural Growth. For some reason our gap between births and deaths is lower than other nearby cities.
2010 to 2015:
Tulsa
Population (2015) 981,005 +4.6%
Total Growth: 43,477
Natural Increase: 22,373
Domestic Net Migration: 13,365
International Net Migration: 7,175
Wichita
Population (2015) 644,610 +2.2%
Total Growth: 13,691
Natural Increase: 20,106
Domestic Net Migration: (13,193) - loss
International Net Migration: 6,633
Oklahoma City
Population (2015) 1,358,452 +8.4%
Total Growth: 105,460
Natural Increase: 41,907
Domestic Net Migration: 46,660
International Net Migration: 15,718
Omaha
Population (2015) 915,312 +5.8%
Total Growth: 49,956
Natural Increase: 35,608
Domestic Net Migration: 4,003
International Net Migration: 11,348
Little Rock
Population (2015) 731,612 +4.5%
Total Growth: 31,789
Natural Increase: 18,484
Domestic Net Migration: 7,888
International Net Migration: 5,310
Kansas City
Population (2015) 2,087,471 +3.9%
Total Growth: 78,133
Natural Increase: 60,024
Domestic Net Migration: (912) - loss
International Net Migration: 19,578
Note, these are MSA numbers, not city.
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
The scary part to me is Kansas is the region seemingly having the largest issues with growth which makes sense given the political climate there, but we are now rushing headfirst into their problems.