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.
When did this thread become a battle between St. Louis and K.C.?
In any case, here's some interesting data to report since this thread began 6 years ago. Between the 2010 Census and 2015, the combined estimated growth of the two MO CSAs was 109,251; that's 85,354 for K.C. and 23,897 for St. Louis. Over the same period, the two NC CSAs grown an estimated 412,526; that's 208,040 for Charlotte and 204,486 for Raleigh.
While there has been recent bickering over density and size between the two MO core cities in this thread, the combined growth between them and the two NC cities over their entire land masses is also an interesting statistical story. The two MO CSAs represent 20,087 square miles while the two NC CSAs represent 11,438. So, in the five years following the last Census and the genesis of this thread, the two NC metros had added nearly 4 times the population of the the two MO metros in only 57% of their respective land area.
The MO metros continue to be larger but, without significant change in direction, it's only a matter of time before the two NC metros catch and pass the two MO metros.
MO combined estimate for 2015: 5,344,809 or 266 ppl/sm
NC combined estimate for 2015: 4,701.059 or 411 ppl/sm
If absolute growth numbers remain constant going forward and CSA boundaries are stable, the two NC metros will pass the two MO metros in CSA population in 2026.
If growth rates are persistent for all four metros, the two NC metros combined will surpass the MO metros population in 2025. In detail, greater Charlotte would pass greater St. Louis in 2024 and greater Raleigh would pass greater K.C. in 2026.
When did this thread become a battle between St. Louis and K.C.?
In any case, here's some interesting data to report since this thread began 6 years ago. Between the 2010 Census and 2015, the combined estimated growth of the two MO CSAs was 109,251; that's 85,354 for K.C. and 23,897 for St. Louis. Over the same period, the two NC CSAs grown an estimated 412,526; that's 208,040 for Charlotte and 204,486 for Raleigh.
While there has been recent bickering over density and size between the two MO core cities in this thread, the combined growth between them and the two NC cities over their entire land masses is also an interesting statistical story. The two MO CSAs represent 20,087 square miles while the two NC CSAs represent 11,438. So, in the five years following the last Census and the genesis of this thread, the two NC metros had added nearly 4 times the population of the the two MO metros in only 57% of their respective land area.
The MO metros continue to be larger but, without significant change in direction, it's only a matter of time before the two NC metros catch and pass the two MO metros.
MO combined estimate for 2015: 5,344,809 or 266 ppl/sm
NC combined estimate for 2015: 4,701.059 or 411 ppl/sm
If absolute growth numbers remain constant going forward and CSA boundaries are stable, the two NC metros will pass the two MO metros in CSA population in 2026.
If growth rates are persistent for all four metros, the two NC metros combined will surpass the MO metros population in 2025. In detail, greater Charlotte would pass greater St. Louis in 2024 and greater Raleigh would pass greater K.C. in 2026.
Kansas City and Saint Louis both have a lot of very rural counties that are in their CSA but have very little population. You can't use CSA density stats. That is just not an accurate representation at all of the cities and if you have been to all four cities, you would know that the built up areas of KC and StL are more dense than the built up areas of Raleigh and Charlotte.
The urbanized area populations and densities of all four cities according the census:
Charlotte
population: 1,249,442
area: 741 sq miles
density: 1685 psm
Raleigh
population: 884,891
area: 518 sq miles
density: 1707 psm
Kansas City
population: 1,519,417
area: 678 sq miles
density: 2242 psm
St. Louis
population: 2,150,706
area: 923 sq miles
density: 2329 psm
Kansas City and Saint Louis both have a lot of very rural counties that are in their CSA but have very little population. You can't use CSA density stats. That is just not an accurate representation at all of the cities and if you have been to all four cities, you would know that the built up areas of KC and StL are more dense than the built up areas of Raleigh and Charlotte.
The urbanized area populations and densities of all four cities according the census:
Charlotte
population: 1,249,442
area: 741 sq miles
density: 1685 psm
Raleigh
population: 884,891
area: 518 sq miles
density: 1707 psm
Kansas City
population: 1,519,417
area: 678 sq miles
density: 2242 psm
St. Louis
population: 2,150,706
area: 923 sq miles
density: 2329 psm
Okay....let's play your game. I'm in. I think that you will see the same trend in the urban area data. Your numbers above are old data. Looking at the most recent data from the recent 2016 global report of urban areas, I think you'll see a striking trend that cannot be denied.
The new estimates do not recalculate the the land areas or densities. Those numbers remain as is from the 2010 estimates. Sorry for not having those estimates.
So, again, the NC metros are on track to eventually pass the MO metros. So far this decade, those numbers are NC:595,697 to MO:124,877. I am not certain that it's understood just how fast the two NC cities and metros are growing and how much of that growth is coming to their core cities and counties. In Raleigh alone, the density metric for the city proper has increased by over 700ppl/sm since 2000, even as the city also added about 27 square miles of land.
FWIW, the Raleigh numbers do not even include Durham, which sits immediately adjacent to Raleigh (the cities' limits actually touch). Eventually the two Triangle area UAs will merge and Raleigh's UA will jump by hundreds of thousands overnight).
Additionally, I understand the concept of having sparsely populated areas within ones metro. It happens in almost all of them. So, that's sort of a weak argument in my book. In the end, the MO metros are more mature and have the current edge in data but there's no denying that the two NC metros are coming at them fast and furious.
source:Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed
^ I was just saying that KC and StL are much more dense than you were attempting to portray in your post. I think it's obvious that Charlotte and Raleigh are growing much faster than KC/StL. I like Charlotte and Raleigh, but personally, it will be a very long time before I would consider either one of them over either KC or StL even if they became larger in population. Fast growing cities that were not big cities 50 years ago with nothing but new construction are just not my thing. I need contrast, historic buildings, art deco you know....charm .
^ I was just saying that KC and StL are much more dense than you were attempting to portray in your post. I think it's obvious that Charlotte and Raleigh are growing much faster than KC/StL. I like Charlotte and Raleigh, but personally, it will be a very long time before I would consider either one of them over either KC or StL even if they became larger in population. Fast growing cities that were not big cities 50 years ago with nothing but new construction are just not my thing. I need contrast, historic buildings, art deco you know....charm .
I'm not too thrilled about the surface parking that still dominates much of Charlotte's 3rd ward neighborhood. On the other hand, the city's skyline has grown a lot over the last 10 years.
Charlotte also deserves some credit for the city's mass transit efforts. St Louis still has a more complete system than Charlotte, but Charlotte is expanding. By 2017, Charlotte will have nearly 19 miles of light rail. By 2020, the downtown area will have 4 miles of streetcar. It's not much to compare to some US cities, but it is a start in the right direction. Charlotte city leaders recently made a trip to Denver to learn how that city is expanding transit so aggressively. I have a feeling that Charlotte leaders are planning their own accelerated funding for future transit projects.
^ I was just saying that KC and StL are much more dense than you were attempting to portray in your post. I think it's obvious that Charlotte and Raleigh are growing much faster than KC/StL. I like Charlotte and Raleigh, but personally, it will be a very long time before I would consider either one of them over either KC or StL even if they became larger in population. Fast growing cities that were not big cities 50 years ago with nothing but new construction are just not my thing. I need contrast, historic buildings, art deco you know....charm .
Okay. I hear ya. There is certainly nothing a city can do about the age in which its built environment came of age but that alone doesn't drive density or set a particular city on a course that cannot change.
I too like historic and older parts of cities. That's why I choose to live in a part of Raleigh that was established in the 1800s. Certainly the older parts of Raleigh represent a much smaller percentage of the total area than in many other cities; I get that.
I have been to both K.C. and STL and have enjoyed my time in each. I particularly like the historic nature of old STL and can only imagine what a grand city it was when it was at its peak. Unfortunately, while cities like Charlotte and Raleigh are on a course of densification, Much of STL's old urban neighborhoods look like combs with up to half of their teeth missing. Neighborhood after neighborhood after neighborhood of empty lots dotting once thriving neighborhoods are now the norm. Without growth, they'll languish and the decline will beget more decline because people won't risk to make the investment. I know that both Charlotte and Raleigh would kill to have those sorts of infill opportunities. I can assure you that you'd see hundreds and hundreds of construction sites if they did.
As for K.C., it's a statistically odd case if you look at its UA and its city limits. How does its urban area have a denser population than its core city's limits? With land area of 315 square miles, it only houses a little over 470,000. Raleigh's nearly that populated and growing faster with only 144 square miles and Charlotte's hundreds of thousands larger than K.C. in ~18 square miles less land area. Certainly K.C has its older core but with little growth, what is the city's and metro's direction? Statistically the metro looks in fine shape in income and the wealth gap between core county and the overall metro isn't as strikingly different as it is between STL city and its metro. Still, I have a hard time figuring it out. Alas, I am having lunch today with a friend from K.C. I suppose that I'll ask him!
On my previous post I picked KC over Ft Worth, St Louis and Memphis despite having less recreation water. However, now we are talking Charlotte and North Carolina and some great water opportunities contained in over 75,000 acres of reservoirs. St Louis and KC have a larger quantity of water but again it is mostly due to the Mississippi/ Missouri Rivers that at times offer less recreation value. So I would pick Charlotte/Raleigh.
As for K.C., it's a statistically odd case if you look at its UA and its city limits. How does its urban area have a denser population than its core city's limits?
Because much of the city limits are not in the urbanized area. About 50% of KCMO's city limits is undeveloped land.
Much of STL's old urban neighborhoods look like combs with up to half of their teeth missing. Neighborhood after neighborhood after neighborhood of empty lots dotting once thriving neighborhoods are now the norm.
I unequivocally disagree with this assessment. While urban decline has hit St. Louis very hard, I would venture to say that at least 60% of the city is relatively stable and solid, especially on the South Side and the central corridor.
As for K.C., it's a statistically odd case if you look at its UA and its city limits. How does its urban area have a denser population than its core city's limits? With land area of 315 square miles, it only houses a little over 470,000. Raleigh's nearly that populated and growing faster with only 144 square miles and Charlotte's hundreds of thousands larger than K.C. in ~18 square miles less land area. Certainly K.C has its older core but with little growth, what is the city's and metro's direction? Statistically the metro looks in fine shape in income and the wealth gap between core county and the overall metro isn't as strikingly different as it is between STL city and its metro. Still, I have a hard time figuring it out. Alas, I am having lunch today with a friend from K.C. I suppose that I'll ask him!
KC's geography is confusing. KCMO annexed a ton of land. There is actually a lot of land in the city limits of KCMO that is not even part of the urbanized area of the metropolitan area.
The original part of the city south of the river and within the 435 beltway is relatively dense outside the industrial districts and the river and park valley (mostly the blue river and swope park corridor).
The city actually went around suburbs and annexed land landlocking many suburbs. Much of of the city limits on the far north side are very rural with very few people. This really screws with the KCMO density stats. Most of the suburban growth has been occurring on the other side of the metro in the MO and KS suburbs, so this is why the northern parts of the city limits of KCMO are not even in the urbanized area.
Basically, KCMO has a large suburb that's only half developed within its city limits.
Hope that makes sense.
Last edited by kcmo; 04-30-2016 at 01:55 PM..
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.
.
