Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-01-2011, 10:58 AM
 
7,055 posts, read 12,279,735 times
Reputation: 6407

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by A&M Bulldawg View Post
First of all, Rochester isn't that big! It's smaller than Birmingham by 100,000+/-.
Monroe county, New York (Rochester) pop. 735,343; land area 659 sq/mi

Jefferson county, Alabama (Birmingham) pop. 665,027; land area 1,113 sq/mi
Quote:
Originally Posted by A&M Bulldawg View Post
Second of all, your post shows how those metros are indeed similar! Also, because Birmingham is the largest in Alabama, its economy goes a long way compared to other metros its size that are second, third, etc. in their states! CASE CLOSED!
B'ham is the big fish in a small pond (I'll give you that). In Tennessee, metro B'ham would be 2nd or 3rd. In NC, metro B'ham would be 4th. As a city though, B'ham would fair well in Tenn and NC (as a metro, not quite as well). My point is that B'ham (as a city) is large for a city that's in such a rural metro area. That is what I stated from the start. Not having large suburbs is a plus IMO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-01-2011, 01:19 PM
 
Location: Franklin, TN
6,662 posts, read 13,275,658 times
Reputation: 7612
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbancharlotte View Post
B'ham is the big fish in a small pond (I'll give you that). In Tennessee, metro B'ham would be 2nd or 3rd. In NC, metro B'ham would be 4th. As a city though, B'ham would fair well in Tenn and NC (as a metro, not quite as well). My point is that B'ham (as a city) is large for a city that's in such a rural metro area. That is what I stated from the start. Not having large suburbs is a plus IMO.
At present, Birmingham would be the 3rd biggest metro in Tennessee, between Memphis (1.3+ mil) and Knoxville (~750,000 MSA/1+ mil CSA).

And Birmingham does have a big suburb in Hoover (over 80k).

But that is aside from the point. Birmingham has somewhat of an image problem (well, not really image -- it's a nice looking town with a pretty setting)...er, perception problem. Like it or not, part of that may be because 'Alabama' is forever attached to the name. I'm not dissing Alabama, but it has not joined its counterparts in terms of growth.

2000-2010 growth rates for southern states (excl. Maryland, Delaware, Oklahoma, Texas)

North Carolina 18.5%
Georgia 18.3%
Florida 17.6%
South Carolina 15.3%
Virginia 13.0%
Tennessee 11.5%
Arkansas 9.1%
Alabama 7.5%
Mississippi 4.3%
Louisiana 1.4%
(nationwide growth was 9.7%)

This doesn't illustrate everything, but there is definitely a perception out there that Alabama hasn't joined the rest of the gang.

I don't think Birmingham needs to experience the 20-40% growth rates that some other southern metros are seeing...but it is even trailing some of the other slower growers like Memphis and Louisville.

I think Louisville and Memphis are good comparison cities, due to their similar current size, similar metro growth rates, and similar past problems with the interior city losing population. Louisville effectively combated this by consolidating with the county. The county itself was losing population in the 80s and 90s, but has seen a modest uptick in growth since. Memphis has annexed large amounts of land to buoy its population. Nashville consolidated with the county in the 60s due to an eroding tax base.

I'm not saying that Birmingham needs to take either of these approaches, but there has definitely been a trend since the 60s of southern cities consolidating or annexing massive amounts of land in order to retain their population. Birmingham needs to do something to make the inner city grow. Make the city center and historic neighborhoods more attractive to young professionals. Bring some new blood into the city.

Birmingham is down, but not out. You need to find city (and, just as importantly, regional) leaders with a clear vision and goal for the city. Suburbs have been the 'in' thing for a while. But if they are constantly competing with one another, rather than working together, then it is bad for the area as a whole.

If Birmingham is able to get things turned around, and healthy, positive growth is established, then it will rejoin the ranks of the cities that have recently "passed" it, like Charlotte, Nashville, Raleigh-Durham, Oklahoma City, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2011, 02:09 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 15,956,487 times
Reputation: 4047
By City:
- Omaha: 408,958
- Lincoln: 258,379

Source: Census 2010 News | U.S. Census Bureau Delivers Nebraska's 2010 Census Population Totals, Including First Look at Race and Hispanic Origin Data for Legislative Redistricting

Omaha MSA:
- Cass County, NE: 25,241
- Douglas County, NE: 517,110
- Sarpy County, NE: 158,840
- Saunders County, NE: 20,780
- Washington County, NE: 20,234
- Harrison County, IA: 14,928
- Mills County, IA: 15,059
- Pottawattamie County, IA: 93,158
Total: 864,350

Omaha CSA:
- Cass County, NE: 25,241
- Douglas County, NE: 517,110
- Sarpy County, NE: 158,840
- Saunders County, NE: 20,780
- Washington County, NE: 20,234
- Harrison County, IA: 14,928
- Mills County, IA: 15,059
- Pottawattamie County, IA: 93,158
- Dodge County, NE: 36,691
Total: 901,041

The estimates in 2009 had the city at 454,731, so the city proper actually didn't meet the expectations but the 2009 estimates had the MSA at 849,517, in which the 2010 official numbers had it set that it exceeded the 2009 estimates which is good. The 2009 estimates had the CSA at 885,157, and the 2010 numbers indicate that it exceeded the 2009 estimates and also broke into the 900,000 range with the release of the 2010 numbers.

Overall: I would say a good and strong show.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2011, 02:10 PM
 
Location: Metro Birmingham, AL
1,672 posts, read 2,863,865 times
Reputation: 1246
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbancharlotte View Post
B'ham 1.2 million; 6,100 sq/mi

OKC 1.2 million; 5,500 sq/mi

Richmond 1.2 million; 5,700 sq/mi

Buffalo 1.2 million; 2,900 sq/mi

Rochester 1.2 million; 3,700 sq/mi

I guess they can be compared if we ignore the fact the B'ham sprawls the most (and still doesn't have more people than the others).
It has very little to do with image. I personally like B'ham. I just happen to know that B'ham's metro area (not B'ham itself, just the metro) is very rural. I mean seriously, look at Jefferson county itself. Less than 700K people in a county of over 1,100 sq/mi. Compare that to the largest counties in Metro OKC, Nashville, Jacksonville, etc and see how B'ham looks then.

Now I am NOT knocking B'ham because the city itself is loaded with charm and character. In many ways, the city of B'ham is very comparable to the city of Charlotte. However, the metro is lacking. This is because the city of B'ham has not attracted the suburban growth like others have. Is this a bad thing? Not IMO.
I understand where your coming from. Alabama counties by design are larger in land size than those in states like Georgia. You can transition from urban to suburban/exurban to rural without leaving Jefferson County.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2011, 02:25 PM
 
Location: Metro Birmingham, AL
1,672 posts, read 2,863,865 times
Reputation: 1246
Quote:
Originally Posted by nashvols View Post
At present, Birmingham would be the 3rd biggest metro in Tennessee, between Memphis (1.3+ mil) and Knoxville (~750,000 MSA/1+ mil CSA).

And Birmingham does have a big suburb in Hoover (over 80k).

But that is aside from the point. Birmingham has somewhat of an image problem (well, not really image -- it's a nice looking town with a pretty setting)...er, perception problem. Like it or not, part of that may be because 'Alabama' is forever attached to the name. I'm not dissing Alabama, but it has not joined its counterparts in terms of growth.

2000-2010 growth rates for southern states (excl. Maryland, Delaware, Oklahoma, Texas)

North Carolina 18.5%
Georgia 18.3%
Florida 17.6%
South Carolina 15.3%
Virginia 13.0%
Tennessee 11.5%
Arkansas 9.1%
Alabama 7.5%
Mississippi 4.3%
Louisiana 1.4%
(nationwide growth was 9.7%)

This doesn't illustrate everything, but there is definitely a perception out there that Alabama hasn't joined the rest of the gang.

I don't think Birmingham needs to experience the 20-40% growth rates that some other southern metros are seeing...but it is even trailing some of the other slower growers like Memphis and Louisville.

I think Louisville and Memphis are good comparison cities, due to their similar current size, similar metro growth rates, and similar past problems with the interior city losing population. Louisville effectively combated this by consolidating with the county. The county itself was losing population in the 80s and 90s, but has seen a modest uptick in growth since. Memphis has annexed large amounts of land to buoy its population. Nashville consolidated with the county in the 60s due to an eroding tax base.

I'm not saying that Birmingham needs to take either of these approaches, but there has definitely been a trend since the 60s of southern cities consolidating or annexing massive amounts of land in order to retain their population. Birmingham needs to do something to make the inner city grow. Make the city center and historic neighborhoods more attractive to young professionals. Bring some new blood into the city.

Birmingham is down, but not out. You need to find city (and, just as importantly, regional) leaders with a clear vision and goal for the city. Suburbs have been the 'in' thing for a while. But if they are constantly competing with one another, rather than working together, then it is bad for the area as a whole.

If Birmingham is able to get things turned around, and healthy, positive growth is established, then it will rejoin the ranks of the cities that have recently "passed" it, like Charlotte, Nashville, Raleigh-Durham, Oklahoma City, etc.
To be honest leadership at the local and state level have very little to nothing to promote growth of any sort in Birmingham or in Alabama. On top of that you have every suburb with the "me me me, and screw everyone else" attitude.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2011, 02:35 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 15,956,487 times
Reputation: 4047
The most common trend so far has been undercount going from 2009 estimates and into 2010 official numbers for 66% of the cities released so far.

The undercount team consists of (at city proper level): Chicago, Houston, San Antonio, Dallas, Austin, Fort Worth, Baltimore, Denver, Tulsa, Kansas City, Honolulu, Saint Louis, Salt Lake City, & Omaha.

The cities that got even more than their 2009 estimates were: Indianapolis, El Paso, Seattle, Washington DC, Portland, Las Vegas, & Oklahoma City.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2011, 02:36 PM
 
Location: Franklin, TN
6,662 posts, read 13,275,658 times
Reputation: 7612
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepless in Bham View Post
To be honest leadership at the local and state level have very little to nothing to promote growth of any sort in Birmingham or in Alabama. On top of that you have every suburb with the "me me me, and screw everyone else" attitude.
That's exactly what I'm talking about.

During the 90s and early 2000s, the Nashville suburbs were the same way. The city proper has grown and prospered, so there's not really a comparison there (plus, the city proper is more than 3x the size of Birmingham's)...but a lot of the suburbs got addicted to the growth and revenue it brought in like it was crack. Traffic has increased substantially, and infrastructure has been neglected for too long. Somewhere around the mid 2000s, though, it seems like there have been a lot more efforts to improve that...and cities and counties are coming together more to aid this. There's still some of that 'me me me' attitude in some of the suburbs, but now that they are kind of growing together, they realize it's important to work together to make the whole region a better place.

There's still a ton of sprawl, but some cities have worked at densifying and improving road networks. There are also supposed urban growth boundaries for the cities...but I think this is mainly just a way to have more "civilized" annexation, rather than cities grabbing huge chunks of land that they can't provide services to, or annexing down a road several miles from the town's center to either cut off another city's growth, or to try to feed off of a particular area that is growing. Nashville has some oddly shaped suburbs, but a few of them are starting to fill out. When I look at a map of Birmingham, I see some of the most strangely shaped cities, extending in little blocks all around Birmingham. It seems like the city itself has been trapped, and is trying to escape the suburbs from choking it out.

It might be a good idea for the state to step in and help implement plans for smarter growth, and to benefit the whole area, rather than the attitude of the individual cities fighting each other for land.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2011, 02:38 PM
 
Location: Tower of Heaven
4,023 posts, read 7,346,290 times
Reputation: 1450
Quote:
Originally Posted by DANNYY View Post
By City:
- Omaha: 408,958
- Lincoln: 258,379

Source: Census 2010 News | U.S. Census Bureau Delivers Nebraska's 2010 Census Population Totals, Including First Look at Race and Hispanic Origin Data for Legislative Redistricting

Omaha MSA:
- Cass County, NE: 25,241
- Douglas County, NE: 517,110
- Sarpy County, NE: 158,840
- Saunders County, NE: 20,780
- Washington County, NE: 20,234
- Harrison County, IA: 14,928
- Mills County, IA: 15,059
- Pottawattamie County, IA: 93,158
Total: 864,350

Omaha CSA:
- Cass County, NE: 25,241
- Douglas County, NE: 517,110
- Sarpy County, NE: 158,840
- Saunders County, NE: 20,780
- Washington County, NE: 20,234
- Harrison County, IA: 14,928
- Mills County, IA: 15,059
- Pottawattamie County, IA: 93,158
- Dodge County, NE: 36,691
Total: 901,041

The estimates in 2009 had the city at 454,731, so the city proper actually didn't meet the expectations but the 2009 estimates had the MSA at 849,517, in which the 2010 official numbers had it set that it exceeded the 2009 estimates which is good. The 2009 estimates had the CSA at 885,157, and the 2010 numbers indicate that it exceeded the 2009 estimates and also broke into the 900,000 range with the release of the 2010 numbers.

Overall: I would say a good and strong show.
So the census 2009 estimations underestimated suburbs, as Houston.But the growth of this area is strong.No other stats about this Dan ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2011, 02:41 PM
 
Location: vista
514 posts, read 762,538 times
Reputation: 255
Default not quite true

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderful Jellal View Post
You can expect an impressive growth for Omaha, it's an emergent US city of this decade : very good economy, low unemployment rate, affordable housing, pretty diverse..

Omaha's not an emerging city. It's always been this way. Maybe it's just being discovered by folks that haven't been paying attention. Omaha's been a vibrant, successful city since territorial days. I know because I grew up in Lincoln and am quite knowledgeable in Nebraska history.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2011, 02:42 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 15,956,487 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderful Jellal View Post
But the growth of this area is strong.No other stats about this Dan ?
The thing with Houston is that they've compiled the proof needed to challenge the US Census (which they declared they are in June) that the city has way more people than the estimates had it as. Houston's will most probably gain a good amount and bring it closer to its 2009 estimates which were at 2.25 Million rather than 2.1 Million.

I think most city propers will be undercounted compared to 2009 estimates. Its more than a general trend, its a very likely cause of which will probably happen.

As for Omaha, it showed exceptional gains (in my opinion) from the last decade. My inner feeling tells me its going to be the the leading city for the Great Plains for this coming decade, its practically poised to do so thus far. Breaking 900,000 is a milestone, and by next decade given the trends it will probably be even more so stronger.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top