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.
Pretty sure it's more than a mile. But the point is, drive through Louisville, Nashville, or Birmingham. The interstate cuts straight through the heart of downtown, right in the midst of it all, in Indianapolis it does not.
Ah, I figured that was the problem. But now you know you don't need to follow 465. You can just stay on 65 and it cuts right through the center of Indy.
Ah, I figured that was the problem. But now you know you don't need to follow 465. You can just stay on 65 and it cuts right through the center of Indy.
I don't spend much time in Indy, I just follow my GPS. lol
Rates are what people are usually referring to when talking about growth of cities and MSAs
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.
The Minneapolis MSA also grew by 38,653 in 2011. Based on raw population growth Chicago and Minneapolis are the two most desirable Midwestern metros to relocate to by a wide margin. That shouldn't be a surprise to anybody.
The Chicage msa is also growing faster than indy, which is a sign that more people want to live there.
2011 population growth:
Chicago +43,648
Indianapolis +22,327
Isn't that a rather unfair comparison? The size differences are very large, so you'll get larger differences in population growth year to year. A better figure would be % growth.
Isn't that a rather unfair comparison? The size differences are very large, so you'll get larger differences in population growth year to year. A better figure would be % growth.
Different numbers are useful for different things. I would assert that if you want to know what a city's drawing power is then absolute population growth is the more useful number.
Sioux Falls is the fastest growing city in the Midwest in percent terms but it isn't like it is being mobbed with people or because everyone wants to live there, it is more a function of being small but having healthy growth.
Isn't that a rather unfair comparison? The size differences are very large, so you'll get larger differences in population growth year to year. A better figure would be % growth.
Exactly.
Indianapolis is growing Faster than Chicago.
% growth is what matters. Especially when Chicago is 5X larger than Indy.
what you also need to keep in mind too is how many Chicagoans are relocating to Indy to take advantage of the lower taxes/higher quality of life/lower cost of living and real estate.
The Middle Class is stronger in Indy than it is in Chicago and ironically Chicago is losing its middle class just like New York is.
Also Chicago only gaining 2X the number of people in a year than Indy and yet Chicago is 5X larger is kinda sad.
Shows Indy can stand up and compete with Chicago. even though Chi-Town is again 5X larger.
1. Chicago - a league of its own!
2. Mpls/SP - surprisingly wonderful!
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.
