Oklahoma City, the most sprawling city in the country??

[pirate_lafitte]

Originally Posted by Dianne_07

It has to be, look at maps of the city, it is in 2 counties and the city itself takes up almost all of central Oklahoma. I'm not complaining, I guess this is a good thing but OKC should be getting the urban sprawl award not LA.

OKC is NOT the most sprawling city in the nation. For Oklahoma, yes. Is it sprawling, yes. You want to look at the posterchild for sprawl, look at Atlanta,GA. Metropolitan Atlanta covers 15 counties and part of the metro borders Alabama. And Georgia is the largest state in land size east of the Mississippi river, so you could imagine Atlanta's sprawl.

[png22]

OKC is quite sprawling for cities in this area - the suburbs stretch out there quite a way. But it is possible to hit country within 45 minutes, no matter where you are or where you point your car, and there are larger cities out there that, of course, have more to "sprawl" with.

[Redshadowz]

You people obviously have no concept of what sprawling means. Oklahoma city is the most sprawling big city in the country by far. Sprawling doesn't just mean, how big is the metropolitan area of a city, it is about population density. Los Angeles may have a bigger sprawl area than Oklahoma city, but it also has about ten times the population.

US Cities Over 100,000 Ranked by Population Density: 1990

It may seem nice to have your own space, with your own stuff, and not ever have to interact with anyone else. But its actually very unhealthy. And the sprawl means we drive a lot more(and further) than most other cities. While our traffic is pretty good because of the sprawl and pretty good highway system. This lifestyle is unsustainable, especially as our population grows. The population of the country will increase 50% over the next 30-40 years.

If the city was more dense, we could have had more public parks, with more amenities. We could have mass transit that was effective and affordable. We could all walk more and be more healthy.

But instead, we are one of the most obese states in the country, with the worst mass transit system of any large city in the country, and we use soo much more energy than almost every other state in the country(per capita).

The Happiest States of America - Economix Blog - NYTimes.com

Yes, we are way below average in happiness. Go figure.

[Jammie]

Red, thank you for that link. I'm not sure I agree with their map. Just an example~it lists Cali as being one of the happiest states. I'm sure there are many happy people there with the ocean and their beautiful weather, BUT there has been a huge exodus out of Cali so it kind of confuses me.

Oh, and the obesity rate in OK~we just had a discussion about that and we all kind of agreed it had a lot to do with all the fried foods.

[okccowboy]

Oklahoma City is the capital and largest city of the U.S. state of Oklahoma. The county seat of Oklahoma County,[3] the city ranks 31st among United States cities in population.[4] The city's estimated population as of 2008 was 551,789[5], with an estimated metro-area population of 1,206,142[6]. In 2008, the Oklahoma City-Shawnee Combined Statistical Area had a population of 1,275,758 residents.[7]
Besides Oklahoma County, the city limits extend into Canadian, Cleveland, and Pottawatomie counties. The city ranks as the seventh-largest city in the United States by land area which includes consolidated city-counties; it is the largest city in the United States by land area whose government is not consolidated with that of a county (or, in the case of Alaska, a borough).

Oklahoma City - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[okcpulse]

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

You people obviously have no concept of what sprawling means. Oklahoma city is the most sprawling big city in the country by far. Sprawling doesn't just mean, how big is the metropolitan area of a city, it is about population density. Los Angeles may have a bigger sprawl area than Oklahoma city, but it also has about ten times the population.

Ummm, no. Population density of a city's land area does not define how sprawling a city is. Oklahoma City's urbanized area has remained clustered within 240 square miles of space. That's 240 contiguous square miles out of 608 square miles. And since 95% of Oklahoma City's population resides within that 240 square miles, that equates to roughly 2,185 people per square mile. That really changes the picture, doesn't it?

Now, if Oklahoma City had 590 square miles of developed land, with 551,000 people residing in the city's limits, THEN we would be a sprawling, low-density city.

Houston is by far the most sprawling city in the country. Development spills so far out of Houston's boundaries that large chunks of Harris county had to be sliced up into unnamed municipal urban districts, of which Houston and Harris County levies a MUD tax. I mean, we are talking MILES upon MILES of subdivisions that can swallow Oklahoma City whole.

The population density argument is losing its ground, because it confuses the hell out of people. Prior to the 1950's, Oklahoma City was only 85 square miles in land area, which is why our urban footprint is small compared to the current land area of 608 square miles. The annexation spree happened in 1956.