U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-16-2012, 02:20 PM
 
Location: Mexico City, formerly Columbus, Ohio
13,106 posts, read 13,507,872 times
Reputation: 5788

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DynamoLA View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-16-2012, 02:38 PM
 
Location: Where Else...?
740 posts, read 1,021,121 times
Reputation: 657
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...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2012, 02:40 PM
 
Location: Glendale, CA
1,298 posts, read 2,114,239 times
Reputation: 1374
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2012, 03:41 PM
 
2,248 posts, read 6,212,898 times
Reputation: 2078
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2012, 03:56 PM
 
56,749 posts, read 81,082,761 times
Reputation: 12550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colts View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2012, 03:57 PM
 
Location: Mexico City, formerly Columbus, Ohio
13,106 posts, read 13,507,872 times
Reputation: 5788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colts View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2012, 03:58 PM
 
Location: Shaw.
2,226 posts, read 3,148,195 times
Reputation: 809
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.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2012, 04:03 PM
 
2,248 posts, read 6,212,898 times
Reputation: 2078
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2012, 04:07 PM
 
Location: Mexico City, formerly Columbus, Ohio
13,106 posts, read 13,507,872 times
Reputation: 5788
Quote:
Originally Posted by DynamoLA View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2012, 04:12 PM
 
Location: Mexico City, formerly Columbus, Ohio
13,106 posts, read 13,507,872 times
Reputation: 5788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colts View Post
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.
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.
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - 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 - Top