Looking at Oklahoma City’s population of about 200,000 in 1940 and 655,000 in 2019, it’s easy to think that Oklahoma City has little in common with older Rust Belt cities that are known for dramatic population decline in the 20th Century. But if we look at a more local level, we can see that OKC’s large geographic area blinds us from a real legacy of population loss in the central city.
For an extreme example, take the downtown area bounded by Classen, 13th Street, the Oklahoma River, and Lottie Avenue. In 1940, this area recorded 54,000 residents. The most recent Census data (2019) estimates less than 9,000 residents in the same 4-square mile zone (the area is actually beginning to recover population since 2000).
I compiled the map below to highlight population loss and peak populations since 1940 in Oklahoma City’s pre-1940 developed area.
In the 1940s, Oklahoma City occupied about 25 square miles. Since then, a history of annexation has added about 600 square miles to the city’s area. The city’s growth has occurred in those annexed areas, while the historic center has lost population density, as shown in the video timeline of population density below. Even in neighborhoods that have become known for rapid redevelopment, populations are often far below their peak populations from 1940-1960.
Population loss has had many causes: Urban renewal policies and infrastructure projects of the mid-century period are part of the story for the most dramatic displacements, in downtown and in Black neighborhoods of northeast Oklahoma City. Some neighborhoods just changed over time. Many white families moved to outlying school districts after racial integration of schools. Household sizes have changed, too: many historic neighborhoods are more likely to have singles, young couples, or older adults occupying homes that were once occupied by larger families with children.
What does it mean for a neighborhood to contain just 15%, or even 60%, of the population it once held?
Many of these neighborhoods no longer support the services and amenities they once had. We see this impact everything from grocery stores to neighborhood schools to public transit. Historic commercial districts are either filled with vacancy because they have far fewer customers than they were built for, or have reinvented themselves into regional destinations that draw their customers from the entire metro area (contributing to parking pressure).
The fact of population loss in a neighborhood also puts NIMBY arguments against new housing in perspective. In most areas, zoning policy limits new construction to single-family homes with large minimum lot sizes, despite the fact that most of these pre-1940 neighborhoods are filled with missing middle housing. New development codes are in progress, but at least for now builders who want to go beyond one housing unit per 6,000 square feet of land under ubiquitous R-1 zoning have to jump through hoops. Zoning is one of the barriers that makes it difficult, if not impossible, to construct new housing that would restore mid-century density.
Should it matter?
It’s important to recognize that large portions of Oklahoma City have are experiencing outcomes related to historical population losses, even as the citywide population trend reflects the city’s self-image of growth and revitalization. Ultimately, there are a limited number of physical paths to population restoration: Filling vacant housing; building new housing that reaches every market segment; and attracting (or retaining) households with larger family sizes. It’s worth thinking about setting concrete population targets, and supporting them with policy, as many cities like Cleveland and Minneapolis have successfully done.