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.
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.
lol then I guess Sioux Falls and Madison and Aurora go toe-to-toe with Indy!
It's Minneapolis if you want a mid-size city. Madison for a small city. Chicago by default for a big city. The rest by and large want what these cities already have.
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.
I still don't understand your argument. That means if Indianapolis were to gain 40,000 people, it would still look like it's growing less than Chicago. Percentages work better because it shows how much demand there is to live in a specific city.
I'll agree with you that absolute population numbers may work better you're talking about really small towns, but I wouldn't even put Sioux Falls in that category.
It's Minneapolis if you want a mid-size city. Madison for a small city. Chicago by default for a big city. The rest by and large want what these cities already have.
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.
I wasn't implying that, just stating the facts of the prevailing social culture of the area. Studying demography and changes over time is a hobby of mine.
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.
In Sioux Falls case it is strong job growth on a percentage basis,and VERY young demographics that are driving growth.
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.
Madison has plenty of appeal with the best job growth of ANY COUNTY in the state of Wisconsin over the last 10-15 years. It has a rapidly growing tech, medical, sector growth based on its size and offers a great blend of city, town, and country within a short distance that is preferable to what I look for. That, and the outdoor recreation w/trails and LAKES, not reservoirs like you find it in the South make it the best small metro in the Midwest.
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.
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.
Being a native midwesterner (and native Chicagoan), of the cities Ive been to, not including Chicago which is sort of a special case:
Milwaulkee. I was particularly suprised with Milwaulkee, which I was expecting to be a big zero.
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.
