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 should have phrased the question differently...we all realize Sun Belt cities took advantage of generous annexation laws in the late 20th century, up to about 2005. My question was really aimed at post-2008, within the last decade, post-recession, where have we seen this frenzied annexation? That's what I meant by "recent"...
I don't know of any, though it's entirely possible I just may not be privy to the information, so your statement about "Rust Belt cities can't annex as easily" is a moot point. Nobody is doing that with the same vigor they did it 15+ years ago. North Carolina tightened its annexation laws a while ago (2012) and free, forced annexation (which is how NC cities mostly gained population for 50 years) is pretty much a dead issue. Annexation isn't even really approached anymore...
I didn't even mention "Rust Belt cities can't annex as easily" in that post.
Now you are asking a different and more specific question...The problem is that even if it isn't with the same vigor as 15 years ago, it still makes a difference in terms of comparisons or at least people should know that there are great differences in terms of what impacts growth of cities.
There has been some slight annexation since 2008 in other cities such as Raleigh annexed about 4 square miles since then. Here is an article from 2013 about Greensboro, which mentions Charlotte: https://www.greensboro.com/news/loca...9bb30f31a.html
Also, the Portland, OR and Vancouver, BC metro areas seem FAR larger and more heavily developed than those of Charlotte, Cincinnati or Kansas City (which are of similar size).
Sioux Falls is often larger than many perceive it to be, given it's in South Dakota. But it has a thriving business population and tons of entrepreneurs with no income tax. It's medical facilities service a very wide geographical area. Often on weekends 2 hour restaurant waits are not uncommon, same with waiting multiple turns at stoplights. It's obviously still not huge, but much more bustling than I think most would believe.
Also, the Portland, OR and Vancouver, BC metro areas seem FAR larger and more heavily developed than those of Charlotte, Cincinnati or Kansas City (which are of similar size).
I agree, and much, if not most, of this is because both Portland and Vancouver have seriously embraced and expanded rail rapid transit. Of the 3 latter American cities listed, only Charlotte has built any rapid transit at all, and it's 18.6 mile line, with a connecting streetcar line, has greatly improved Charlotte's built-up environment and walkability. Charlotte has more rail expansion planned; let's hope conservatives don't get in the way.
Sioux Falls is often larger than many perceive it to be, given it's in South Dakota. But it has a thriving business population and tons of entrepreneurs with no income tax. It's medical facilities service a very wide geographical area. Often on weekends 2 hour restaurant waits are not uncommon, same with waiting multiple turns at stoplights. It's obviously still not huge, but much more bustling than I think most would believe.
Good point.
I don't think most people outside the Dakotas associate either state with a city of any size. I think they're generally regarded as sparsely settled and windswept - pace Mount Rushmore or the International Peace Garden, Wyoming without the scenery.
Sioux Falls, from what I've heard about it, including from you, is the exception to this rule. It's also located at the state's extreme southeast tip, however, which may also explain the disconnect.
Larger than most would imagine:
Pasco, WA (only because I didn't even realize this was a city/metro area until my pilot friend told me he was flying to Pasco airport. "Pasco?" No offense to anyone living in Pasco metro area.....
Feels smaller than it is:
Atlanta metro - I moved here recently, and in many respects, the southern half of the city never gets visited. Also many of outlying areas that people moved to just for the lower cost of living, but they don't really add to the feel of the size of the city.
Charlottesville
Providence is a reference point. Providence has a core of similar population that’s 2x Denser than St Louis. In a smaller city. It’s to prove a point that much of the Rust belt is actually closer to the Sunbelt than “urban” northeastern cities. St Louis is only about 30% denser than the sunbelt cities like Tampa (and like 15% denser than St Petersburg) that really not noticeable. Detroit is only about 20% denser than Dallas, who’s metro division is similar in size to Detroit’s.
Consider Boston is about 25% denser than DC over 61 sq miles but the cities feel about the same.
I live in Tampa, I'm from St. Louis. St. Louis functions and feels like a denser city. I will say you have more consistent development in Tampa for obvious reasons (no de-industrialization factor, no large ghetto areas), but there is nothing in Tampa approaching the density of South St. Louis in Tampa. It's just like saying Miami is denser than Philly, it's a fact, but there is no comparison as far as built urban fabric.
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.
