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)
 
Old 12-04-2012, 09:20 AM
 
Location: Detroit
983 posts, read 1,428,914 times
Reputation: 1065

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewcifer View Post
I realize that but in some ways absolute growth means more because it shows how many people are voting with their feet. Also it is easier for a smaller city to post a high growth percentage because they are starting from a lower base.
I still don't see your point. Growth rates are what usually matter to cities. A 44k person gain to the Chicago area is not nearly as significant as a 2k person gain to the Williston, ND area. Even though Williston may have only gained 2k people in one year, its growth rate for that one year is about 10% where Chicago's would probably be between 1-2%.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-04-2012, 10:30 AM
 
Location: San Diego
1,762 posts, read 3,051,588 times
Reputation: 1233
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattywo85 View Post
Lol I love how as soon as you get proven wrong you get quiet and then when you find a post that you can put a positive spin on Indy you speak up again.
Lol, I find it almost equally ignorant, funny, and embarrassing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2012, 10:38 AM
 
3,722 posts, read 3,879,507 times
Reputation: 2774
Chicago
Minneapolis/St. Paul
St. Louis
Milwaukee
Madison

Big gap

Detroit
Cleveland
Columbus
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2012, 12:06 PM
 
Location: Minneapolis (St. Louis Park)
5,991 posts, read 8,315,951 times
Reputation: 4270
Quote:
Originally Posted by northbound74 View Post
That doesn't make any sense to me. It is just a matter of preference. Minneapolis is nice enough (though Milwaukee is more my speed), Madison has no appeal whatsoever (though the bike lanes are spiffy), and Chicago, while cool, is an unenviable mess.
THIS doesn't make any sense to ME! See how that works?

I don't think anybody is trying to speak on behalf of everyone who views this thread, so when people say something like "Chicago is clearly best" or "Indy is the best value among all Midwestern cities" it doesn't necessarily reflect anything that is 100% true or even objective.....it's just one person's opinion. It's NICE to get facts and tidbits that go along with an opinion, like "Indy is the best value in the Midwest BECAUSE....." is so much better than "Indy, no doubt!".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2012, 12:09 PM
 
Location: Minneapolis (St. Louis Park)
5,991 posts, read 8,315,951 times
Reputation: 4270
Quote:
Originally Posted by RC01 View Post
I still don't see your point. Growth rates are what usually matter to cities. A 44k person gain to the Chicago area is not nearly as significant as a 2k person gain to the Williston, ND area. Even though Williston may have only gained 2k people in one year, its growth rate for that one year is about 10% where Chicago's would probably be between 1-2%.
They both matter.

The fact is that Austin, TX may be growing by 30%+ per decade right now, but once it starts to reach a critical mass that percentage will surely fall, but the total number of incoming residents will still be very notable. So if a city like Los Angeles is adding over a million people to its metro each decade, but Amarillo, TX is growing 50% from 200,000 people, which of those two do you think is a better representation of where Americans are moving?

It's not a simple answer.....and I THINK that's Drewcifer's point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2012, 12:12 PM
 
Location: Minneapolis (St. Louis Park)
5,991 posts, read 8,315,951 times
Reputation: 4270
Quote:
Originally Posted by TAM88 View Post
Chicago
Minneapolis/St. Paul
St. Louis
Milwaukee
Madison

Big gap

Detroit
Cleveland
Columbus

Ooooo, I'm not sure I agree with this personally. I've lived in 5 of the 8 cities you listed too, with family in 2 of the remaining 3, so I have a bit of exposure to just about all of them (not Milwaukee though). If you want to show a "Big gap", I'd do it this way (in no specific order within each grouping):

Chicago
Minneapolis/St. Paul
Madison

Small gap

Milwaukee
Kansas City
St. Louis
Cleveland
Columbus
Indianapolis
Cinicinnati



Big gap



Detroit (really just the city....the suburbs are fine)
Toledo...
Dayton...
etc....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2012, 12:16 PM
 
10,559 posts, read 13,116,292 times
Reputation: 6356
Quote:
Originally Posted by wh15395 View Post
Lol, I find it almost equally ignorant, funny, and embarrassing.
Where is he?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2012, 12:26 PM
 
Location: M I N N E S O T A
14,800 posts, read 17,713,305 times
Reputation: 9029
Why do people rank Cleveland so low? The Cleveland area is about on the level of the Detroit Metro and the Twin Cities. Plus the city itself has that east coast urban feel to it and you are by far in one of the best locations in the country, on a great lake plus you are close to 3 monster cities of North America; Chicago, NYC and Toronto.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2012, 12:33 PM
 
10,559 posts, read 13,116,292 times
Reputation: 6356
Quote:
Originally Posted by iNviNciBL3 View Post
Why do people rank Cleveland so low? The Cleveland area is about on the level of the Detroit Metro and the Twin Cities. Plus the city itself has that east coast urban feel to it and you are by far in one of the best locations in the country, on a great lake plus you are close to 3 monster cities of North America; Chicago, NYC and Toronto.
I agree, Cleveland is so much better than Indy or Columbus.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2012, 03:13 PM
 
Location: Mishawaka, Indiana
6,514 posts, read 9,054,749 times
Reputation: 5008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlajos View Post
I agree, Cleveland is so much better than Indy or Columbus.
That's because Cleveland used to be a LOT larger than it currently is.
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