Annexation and City Size 1950-2010 (home, neighborhoods, gated)

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by DynamoLA

The only thing I read from this table is that Southern/Western cities are younger.

It's not like Northeastern cities never annexed other cities around them (i.e. NYC with Brooklyn). They just did it before the seemingly arbitrary date of 1950.

Sure, New York did it as early as the 1870s, but I think you're missing the point. Annexation helped NYC grow in population just as it's helping Sun Belt cities more recently. Youth really isn't a factor here. Most of the Sun Belt cities were founded 150-200 years ago, so let's not act like these are young cities. They're not. The only thing different is that the annexation has happened more recently than those in the North. My point is not that annexation is new, but that it's a largely ignored factor in Sun Belt growth, in much the same way that natural increase (births vs deaths) is ignored in favor of talking about migration. It played a role in NYC 100 years ago and it's playing a role in Austin now.

[Queen Palm]

so in regards to the SunBelt regions, are you saying that the population growth has more to do with annexation as opposed to people physically moving, or do you feel that it is part and parcel a contributor to population numbers?

I'm just trying to understand correctly...

[DynamoLA]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Sure, New York did it as early as the 1870s, but I think you're missing the point. Annexation helped NYC grow in population just as it's helping Sun Belt cities more recently. Youth really isn't a factor here. Most of the Sun Belt cities were founded 150-200 years ago, so let's not act like these are young cities. They're not. The only thing different is that the annexation has happened more recently than those in the North. My point is not that annexation is new, but that it's a largely ignored factor in Sun Belt growth, in much the same way that natural increase (births vs deaths) is ignored in favor of talking about migration. It played a role in NYC 100 years ago and it's playing a role in Austin now.

Regardless of when a city was "founded", the majority of growth in the South and West has occurred much later than the East Coast.

When people discuss the growth in the Sun Belt, they are talking about states moreso than cities.

State borders have not changed, and the undeniable fact is that people are moving South and West. Did annexation cause city populations to grow in these areas as well? Yes, of course. But it is also an undeniable fact that they have gotten denser as well. Note that cities such as Los Angeles don't appear on your list from an annexation perspective, but it has gotten much denser and more populous. Same with Seattle and others.

But some of the largest "Sunbelt" suburbs weren't even cities in 1950. Irvine CA, Plano TX, Glendale AZ, Henderson NV, Moreno Valley CA, etc etc etc... Most of these cities were created out of fields or open space in the last few decades.

[Colts]

Consolidation is not the same as annexation. I don't know how many times I've said that on this forum.

A consolidated city cannot annex anything because there's no county government.

[ckhthankgod]

Originally Posted by Colts

Consolidation is not the same as annexation. I don't know how many times I've said that on this forum.

A consolidated city cannot annex anything because there's no county government.

True, the premise in terms of the acquisition of land is pretty much the same. Jacksonville is Duval County, Augusta GA is Richmond County, give or take.

1950 is used as it was the peak year for many cities and it is the last census before suburbia took off.

Then, you have to take urban renewal into account too.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by Colts

Consolidation is not the same as annexation. I don't know how many times I've said that on this forum.

A consolidated city cannot annex anything because there's no county government.

It doesn't have to be the same as annexation, but the results are the same: The addition of area land and related population.

[pgm123]

Nothing in this list really surprises me, but it's still cool to look at and you did a great job compiling the data. Thanks.

And 1950 is a good starting year (first census after WWII, the baby boom, etc.)

[Colts]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

It doesn't have to be the same as annexation, but the results are the same: The addition of area land and related population.

For now.

In 50 years, let's see if those consolidated cities can put up the same numbers.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by DynamoLA

Regardless of when a city was "founded", the majority of growth in the South and West has occurred much later than the East Coast.

When people discuss the growth in the Sun Belt, they are talking about states moreso than cities.

State borders have not changed, and the undeniable fact is that people are moving South and West. Did annexation cause city populations to grow in these areas as well? Yes, of course. But it is also an undeniable fact that they have gotten denser as well. Note that cities such as Los Angeles don't appear on your list from an annexation perspective, but it has gotten much denser and more populous. Same with Seattle and others.

But some of the largest "Sunbelt" suburbs weren't even cities in 1950. Irvine CA, Plano TX, Glendale AZ, Henderson NV, Moreno Valley CA, etc etc etc... Most of these cities were created out of fields or open space in the last few decades.

I really disagree that Sun Belt growth discussion largely refers to states. In most forums and articles discussing growth, it's almost always centered on cities/metros. And I'm arguing that annexation gave the perception of more growth than actually occurred from migration. States overall likely benefitted from this the same way that metros have. The general public tends to gravitate towards things that are popular, that appear to have positive momentum, and they can't really be blamed for that. After all, not everyone who see's Raleigh, NC growing is going to move to Raleigh. I don't think it's the only factor, or even the most important one, but it's definitely one that's ignored in the feel-good, we're-so-awesome Sun Belt boosters on forums like C-D. Speaking of density, with very few exceptions, the cities with high-growth tend to have low densities, even after decades of adding people, whether through migration, natural increase or annexation. Northern cities just don't have competition on that, for the most part. You would have to have the Sun Belt boom continue for several more decades and Northern cities continue to lose people at the same time. Neither trend looks likely looking at more recent data.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by Colts

For now.

In 50 years, let's see if those consolidated cities can put up the same numbers.

Well, again, keep in mind this is for a 60-year period. Likely no city on the list is going to maintain those kind of rates. Most of them will end up being locked in by their suburbs, with some exceptions. Also, if the suburban boom is really over, annexation will fall out of favor anyway and cities will focus more on infill and density.