Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm from the "rust belt" and trust me... it isn't pretty up there.
My high school graduating class had 120 kids... and I kid you not, at least 20 of them live in Charlotte.That's just from my HS...
I probably know another 30 people from surrounding areas who live here... I was at a sports bar and when I said where I was from in Pittsburgh she knew a childhood friend who lived across the street from me. Kind of creepy but the Rust Belt is moving down to Charlotte at a high rate.
My high school graduating class had 120 kids... and I kid you not, at least 20 of them live in Charlotte.That's just from my HS...
Sounds like my wife's story. She is from Greenup County Kentucky (of all places) and she's met 4 or 5 folks from her graduating class here in the Charlotte area. Just last week, we saw a Boyd County KY (one county south of Greenup) license plate parked at a house in Dilworth when we were bike riding. My wife was tempted to knock on the door just to see if she knew the person lol. She didn't knock because it could have very well been someone that she knew, but didn't like.
I'm not sure what it is, but when I left Charlotte for Ohio, everybody told me that I had moved in the wrong direction. I got the same reaction when I lived in KY and WV. It's like Georgia and the Carolinas is the "promised land" to many people in that region. I honestly think it's the long Winters. Even as far south as KY, there are days when the temp doesn't go above freezing for 3-4 days in a row. I've even seen single digit (and low-teen) highs in KY; below zero lows.
Summer in the south stinks, but the weather extremes in the Midwest are just crazy. The midwest can see below zero temps and 100 plus temps in the same year. In the south, the extremes just aren't as bad (and real Winter doesn't exist).
I lived in Morehead KY for a few years... I went to a Dave Chapelle concert at Rupp Arena the first week I was there and Dave schooled me on Meth. I never knew what Meth was but the jokes were hilarious...especially because 2 days earlier we needed cough medicine and when we tried to buy it the rack was filled with empty box labels.
Anyways... the whole KY, OH and WV area is really depressing... I thought I knew what poor was but until you go to the hills in Appalachia you don't know what poor is...
We moved from KY to NYC to get back in the big city but if I had the chance to do it again I would've looked at Charlotte. We looked at ATL and Maryland/DC before making that awful decision to donate everything we saved in KY to NYC.
Anyways... the whole KY, OH and WV area is really depressing... I thought I knew what poor was but until you go to the hills in Appalachia you don't know what poor is...
I know. I make the trip up that way 4-5 times a year to see family and friends. I do miss the friends and being so close to my wife's parents (they're kinda like my parents too being that my parents are both dead), but other than that, I honestly can't see why anyone would want to live in that region of the US. Even up towards Columbus (which is technically not a true Rust Belt city like Pittsburgh and Cincy) the dirt, grime, dilapidated homes, and poverty is quite evident.
Then you come to a city like Charlotte and it's like WOW, everything is sooooooo green and clean. People are driving nice shiny cars (even the poor people). The city buses are all relatively new and they don't smoke when they accelerate from a stand-still. Uptown is so clean you can almost eat off of the side walks (it's not really THAT clean, but compared to the downtowns of Rust Belt cities, it really is). On the flip side, I do prefer visiting the larger more urban downtown districts of the older rust belt cities. They seem to have much more character. Still, I'd much rather live in Charlotte. I'm reminded of that fact everytime I take a trip up north.
I know. I make the trip up that way 4-5 times a year to see family and friends. I do miss the friends and being so close to my wife's parents (they're kinda like my parents too being that my parents are both dead), but other than that, I honestly can't see why anyone would want to live in that region of the US. Even up towards Columbus (which is technically not a true Rust Belt city like Pittsburgh and Cincy) the dirt, grime, dilapidated homes, and poverty is quite evident.
Then you come to a city like Charlotte and it's like WOW, everything is sooooooo green and clean. People are driving nice shiny cars (even the poor people). The city buses are all relatively new and they don't smoke when they accelerate from a stand-still. Uptown is so clean you can almost eat off of the side walks (it's not really THAT clean, but compared to the downtowns of Rust Belt cities, it really is). On the flip side, I do prefer visiting the larger more urban downtown districts of the older rust belt cities. They seem to have much more character. Still, I'd much rather live in Charlotte. I'm reminded of that fact everytime I take a trip up north.
Rivers and downtown character are the 2 things I miss in Charlotte... but it's not enough to get me back. All my friends have a 3 day rule.. 3 days max and then it's time to leave.
I remember there were a couple of co-workers of mine, back in the late 1980s from eastern Ohio. Lancaster-Zanesville area. They described it as a pretty moribund place even then. One of them had a brother who took a job in Akron and considered that an improvement in locale that might "lead to something".
My dad and I took a trip a few years ago to Wisconsin and we drove through southern Ohio. Places like Portsmouth seemed dilapidated and depopulating. The scenery by the river was nice, but clearly the economy of the area is at a crawl.
If you're still referring to the growth rates, I don't think that would hurt the percentage. All those areas you mentioned are probably adding people just as fast if not faster than Charlotte.
Faster. Huntersville got their first stoplight sometime around 1980. There are 50,000 people there now, and around 48,000 of them got there after about 1995.
I wanted to address a comment in this thread about annexation, particularly that of Charlotte vs Columbus and the statement that Columbus has seen more annexation than just about anyone. I looked into this claim, using census records back to 1950, to see how cities had grown. I didn't just look at those two cities, but the top 100 largest. Some of the cities I couldn't find info back to 1950, when the annexation trend really began, but I was left with 76 cities. I measured the total area growth as well as the % growth from 1950 to 2010. In regards to Charlotte and Columbus, here's what I found.
Total square miles added 1950-2010.
Charlotte: +267.7
Columbus: +177.8
Total % Change 1950-2010.
Charlotte: +892.3%
Columbus: +451.3%
Annexation Trends 1950-2010
Total Square Miles Added
1950-1970
Charlotte: +46.0
Columbus: +95.2
1970-1990
Charlotte: +98.3
Columbus: +56.3
1990-2010
Charlotte: +123.4
Columbus: +26.3
2000-2010
Charlotte: +55.4
Columbus: +6.9
% Growth By Period
1950-1970
Charlotte: +153.3%
Columbus: +241.6%
1970-1990
Charlotte: +129.3%
Columbus: +41.8%
1990-2010
Charlotte: +70.8%
Columbus: +13.8%
2000-2010
Charlotte: +22.9%
Columbus: +3.3%
So clearly, annexation has been on Charlotte's side about 2x as much overall in the last 60 years, and remains very strong. How much of the population growth the last decade was in the over 55 square miles added to the city? This is not only true of Charlotte, though. Here are other NC cities as far as % growth through annexation 1950-2010.
So clearly, annexation has been on Charlotte's side about 2x as much overall in the last 60 years
In-migration period has been on Charlotte's side moreso than Columbus in the last 60 years. There's just too much focus on annexation. If you wish to see what the raw growth has been for the city and burbs, just look at the county records since 1900. To my knowledge, the county boundaries for Charlotte and Columbus hasn't changed much at all.
Franklin County Ohio (Columbus)
1900 164,460
1910 221,567
1920 283,951
1930 361,055
1940 388,712
1950 503,410
1960 682,962
1970 833,249
1980 869,132
1990 961,437
2000 1,068,978
2010 1,163,414
2011 1,178,799 Franklin County, Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mecklenburg is on pace to a 1.2 million 2020 population while Franklin county is on pace to 1.3 million in 2020. FWIW, Mecklenburg has 526 sq/miles of land; Franklin has 532 sq/miles of land. So without a doubt, county stats will give you a better comparison than city stats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81
How much of the population growth the last decade was in the over 55 square miles added to the city? This is not only true of Charlotte, though. Here are other NC cities as far as % growth through annexation 1950-2010.
This question is moot for several reasons. The main reason is because growth per land area arguments has more to do with when a city grew than it does with anything else. Cities that grew during the days when junior couldn't wait to get a horse and buggy of his own often grew without adding land area at all. Back in those days, Manhattan (23 sq/miles) went from a population of only 60,000 to nearly 2 million in only 100 years (and added no land at all in order to do this).
Then came the invention of the automobile and American cities changed. Great cities like Detroit, St. Louis, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago, and even Manhattan all lost population to their much cheaper suburbs. While this was going on, Civil Rights were kicking into high gear down south. As a result, many blacks (with southern roots) who left the south for the north started to come back "home". Not only did cities in the north have to deal with "white flight" (whites moving to the burbs), they also had to deal with "black flight" (blacks moving down south for a better life).
Columbus was spared because it was not a major industrial city in the Midwest. Though Columbus is older, more urban, and grittier than Charlotte (due to it having a larger pre-automobile population), Columbus is still seen as the "faux-city" in Ohio by the urban snobs in Cincy and Cleveland. I find it funny though that a Columbus poster is now here on Charlotte's forum using to the same tired tactics often used against Columbus on Ohio's forum.
Lastly, have we all forgotten that sprawly-autocentric "urban" centers such as Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston are now considered to be "alpha world" cities (whatever that means)? This fact alone should end all arguments about annexations, land area usage, etc. I say this because it's obvious that a city's density (or lack thereof) has little to nothing to do with the city's status and success in 2012. It does however have plenty do with a city's crime rate, affordability, and overall quality of life.
Last edited by urbancharlotte; 07-16-2012 at 01:52 PM..
In-migration period has been on Charlotte's side moreso than Columbus in the last 60 years. There's just too much focus on annexation. If you wish to see what the raw growth has been for the city and burbs, just look at the county records since 1900. To my knowledge, the county boundaries for Charlotte and Columbus hasn't changed much at all.
Franklin County Ohio (Columbus)
1900 164,460
1910 221,567
1920 283,951
1930 361,055
1940 388,712
1950 503,410
1960 682,962
1970 833,249
1980 869,132
1990 961,437
2000 1,068,978
2010 1,163,414
2011 1,178,799 Franklin County, Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mecklenburg is on pace to a 1.2 million 2020 population while Franklin county is on pace to 1.3 million in 2020. FWIW, Mecklenburg has 526 sq/miles of land; Franklin has 532 sq/miles of land. So without a doubt, county stats will give you a better comparison than city stats.
This question is moot for several reasons. The main reason is because growth per land area arguments has more to do with when a city grew than it does with anything else. Cities that grew during the days when junior couldn't wait to get a horse and buggy of his own often grew without adding land area at all. Back in those days, Manhattan (23 sq/miles) went from a population of only 60,000 to nearly 2 million in only 100 years (and added no land at all in order to do this).
Then came the invention of the automobile and American cities changed. Great cities like Detroit, St. Louis, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago, and even Manhattan all lost population to their much cheaper suburbs. While this was going on, Civil Rights were kicking into high gear down south. As a result, many blacks (with southern roots) who left the south for the north started to come back "home". Not only did cities in the north have to deal with "white flight" (whites moving to the burbs), they also had to deal with "black flight" (blacks moving down south for a better life).
Columbus was spared because it was not a major industrial city in the Midwest. Though Columbus is older, more urban, and grittier than Charlotte (due to it having a larger pre-automobile population), Columbus is still seen as the "faux-city" in Ohio by the urban snobs in Cincy and Cleveland. I find it funny though that a Columbus poster is now here on Charlotte's forum using to the same tired tactics often used against Columbus on Ohio's forum.
Lastly, have we all forgotten that sprawly-autocentric "urban" centers such as Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston are now considered to be "alpha world" cities (whatever that means)? This fact alone should end all arguments about annexations, land area usage, etc. I say this because it's obvious that a city's density (or lack thereof) has little to nothing to do with the city's status and success in 2012. It does however have plenty do with a city's crime rate, affordability, and overall quality of life.
That's all a lovely story, but like most stories contains a whole lot of fiction. First, estimates are fun because they're not based on the present trends, but on the assumed continuation of old ones. Estimates value what happened the last 10 years than what has happened the last year, and they can be very wrong. They are good for basic trends, but the only thing you can say for sure is that both cities are still growing, but not the rate at which its really happening. I really enjoy the thinking that says that someplace with a terrible economy will continue to attract hoardes of people with nothing but sunshine and blue skies to sustain them. Death Valley also has that. I also enjoy the goalpost moving... from city stats being important to suddenly county ones and in-migration. Trying to find new ways to skew the argument is an indication that it's already lost. I was only responding to one single claim, that annexation was more rampant in Columbus than in Charlotte. I proved that reality was the opposite. I don't think I denied that Charlotte has had more in-migration.
NYC did not just grow on its own. It was annexing land at least as far back as the 1800s and did so until its own suburbs prevented it from growing any further. This is true for all cities that grew early on, and will eventually happen to cities like Charlotte. Point is, annexation has been playing a role in city growth for a long time, so in that case Charlotte's no different. It should also not be denied, however, that annexation HAS played a role in that growth, just as natural increase plays a bigger role than migration. Charlotte adding 55 square miles of land in the last 10 years is significant, like it or not.
It's also somewhat ironic that you bring up suburbia stealing population from Northern cities when Charlotte and other Sun Belt cities have, by far, the largest populations actually living in suburbia. It's not even close. This is partially why boom cities with economies so reliant on housing construction were hurt so badly during the recession, and why they're still hurting worse than most.
"Black flight" and the subsequent return to the South is largely a myth. Black populations have continued to grow in the North (Columbus' went up 25% 2000-2010 for example), but the fact is that the South retained far more of them than the North ever gained to begin with. There's no large-scale return as there was never a large scale northern migration, despite popular belief to the contrary. Take a look at national demographic maps. They can show this far better than I can.
Atlanta, Dallas and Houston can't hold a candle to true world alpha cities like NYC, London, Paris, Tokyo, etc. Their own boosters notwithstanding, it takes a little bit more than a bunch of people to really claim that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
