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.
Looks like they are growing at about the same rate. Indy was growing faster, but KC has been growing faster in recent years. A difference of 21k over a ten year period is basically a wash. Both metros are growing relatively slowly.
Looks like they are growing at about the same rate. Indy was growing faster, but KC has been growing faster in recent years. A difference of 21k over a ten year period is basically a wash. Both metros are growing relatively slowly.
Explain that to Rumba. He is the one saying KC was growing faster which isn't remotely true. No one said Indy was growing exponentially faster but saying it is growing faster isn't stretching the truth.
Explain that to Rumba. He is the one saying KC was growing faster which isn't remotely true. No one said Indy was growing exponentially faster but saying it is growing faster isn't stretching the truth.
You are using data that is 7 years old. I'm using the last 3 years which is a best, most recent indicator. In the last 3 years I've shown you emphatic, undeniable proof that KC is growing faster.
I posted the link. You can cherry pick backward as many different years as you like to get the totals you prefer but the last 3 years are the best indicators.
Indy does not compare to KC as a real city. Outside of Indy's small, kitschy downtown that's full of Applebees and Buffalo Wild Wing restaurant chains - there is nothing. Nothing at all. Indy has nothing comparable to KC's River Market, Crown Center, Westport and Plaza Districts.
You are using data that is 7 years old. I'm using the last 3 years which is a best, most recent indicator. In the last 3 years I've shown you emphatic, undeniable proof that KC is growing faster.
I posted the link. You can cherry pick backward as many different years as you like to get the totals you prefer but the last 3 years are the best indicators.
Indy does not compare to KC as a real city. Outside of Indy's small, kitschy downtown that's full of Applebees and Buffalo Wild Wing restaurant chains - there is nothing. Nothing at all. Indy has nothing comparable to KC's River Market, Crown Center, Westport and Plaza Districts.
You're a hard nut to crack. KC has to add an additional 21,176 and Indy has to have ZERO population growth for you to be correct. Just because you had a slight population bump doesn't mean you can declare you growing faster. Since the last Census Indy has closed the population gap by over 21,000 people. Is that a lot? No. However, I can't wrap my head around how you can rationalize that KC is growing faster? Indy has a 6.16 percent growth rate to KC's 4.74.
By your logic if KC and Indy were investment plans you would select the plan paying 1.5 percent less.
You have a stronger argument comparing neighborhoods and perhaps architecture.
This literally made me laugh out loud. Stretch of the year.
Completely correct, one can grow things far more easily in Indiana due to better soils, more consistent rainfall, and far fewer drought periods. Pine trees and other coniferous trees grow far better in Indy compared to KC as well.
This has already been discussed at length, 2 out of 3 people perfer KC to Indy and chances are that the 1 person who perfers Indy has not been to both cities. Why is this still a discussion?
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.