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)
View Poll Results: The next major city/metro in the Midwest
Detroit 29 25.89%
Cleveland 3 2.68%
Columbus 7 6.25%
Cincinnati 4 3.57%
Indianapolis 6 5.36%
Milwaukee 1 0.89%
Minneapolis/St.Paul 49 43.75%
Kansas City 0 0%
St Louis 7 6.25%
Omaha 2 1.79%
Des Moines 2 1.79%
Wichita 2 1.79%
Voters: 112. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-01-2013, 07:31 PM
 
573 posts, read 877,327 times
Reputation: 466

Advertisements

Detroit is for now. I really don't know how much longer it can hold off Minneapolis from bursting the door wide open. Mineapolis has 3,700,000 people in the combined statistical area and although that is less than Detroit, Minneapolis does have a larger gross domestic product. The twin-cities metro area gains 40,000 residents a year which is neck and neck with Chicago, any other metro in the Midwest can not come close to those kind of population gains.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-02-2013, 07:27 AM
 
1,401 posts, read 1,639,211 times
Reputation: 1428
The Twin Cities and Columbus have economic and desirability momentum. Call it a tie.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2013, 08:28 AM
 
Location: Phoenix
1,277 posts, read 4,153,977 times
Reputation: 694
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
Columbus has the same issue as Indianapolis - there are huge amounts of suburbs which were annexed into the city, meaning the actual "urban" area of the cities is much smaller than the total population would seem to indicate.
I don't want a city vs city argument. But to corret a misguided view on Columbus' growth. The city at no time annexed a suburb.

Unlike Indianapolis, which merged its county and city governments, Columbus took its pre WWII 50-60 sq miles (about the same size as most cities urban cores) and expanded the city limits through annexation of undeveloped township land.

Columbus would take over townships (mostly undeveloped land) and develop the land with dense office parks, apartments, condos, homes, retail. This would create new jobs, office parks, etc. This was done from the 50s to today. This type of annexation has slowed since the 90s and Columbus has been simply filling in the already exisiting city limits.

The only circumstance, where Columbus is still annexing, is where it wants to get a large employee base or claim some new economic activity on the fringe of the city. IE a new distrubtion hub, headquarters, casino, etc.

An interesting side note: Columbus made sure developers would want to cooperate with annexation by controllling the regions water supply. If a development needs water, the only way is by annexing into the city of columbus and leaving the township.

Columbus' main revenue driver is the city income tax, and annexation allowed the city to claim a large majority of income tax across the whole metro (by focusing on annexing for purposes of businesses and not residential growth). Through annexation, the city has been able to funnel money raised in "the new city" and pour it back into development in the central city.

Here I am simply explaining how Columbus grew and how it is different than other cities that "merged" their county and city governments. I am not saying annexation is the only way (or best way) to grow a cities revenue or economy (and Columbus knows this which is why it has been shifting (since the 90s) to a infill based growth not annexation based policy.

Last edited by streetcreed; 05-02-2013 at 08:42 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2013, 08:33 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,414 posts, read 11,913,851 times
Reputation: 10533
Quote:
Originally Posted by streetcreed View Post
I don't want a city vs city argument. But to corret a misguided view on Columbus' growth. The city at no time annexed a suburb.

Unlike Indianapolis, which merged its county and city governments, Columbus took its pre WWII 50-60 sq miles (about the same size as most cities urban cores) and expanded the city limits through annexation of undeveloped township land.

Columbus would take over townships (mostly undeveloped land) and develop the land with dense office parks, apartments, condos, homes, retail. This would create new jobs, office parks, etc. This was done from the 50s to today. This type of annexation has slowed since the 90s and Columbus has been simply filling in the already exisiting city limits.

The only circumstance, where Columbus is still annexing, is where it wants to get a large employee base or claim some new economic activity on the fringe of the city. IE a new distrubtion hub, headquarters, casino, etc.

Columbus' main revenue driver is the city income tax, and annexation allowed the city to claim a large majority of income tax across the whole metro (by focusing on annexing for purposes of businesses and not residential growth). Through annexation, the city has been able to funnel money raised in "the new city" and pour it back into development in the central city.

Here I am simply explaining how Columbus grew and how it is different than other cities that "merged" their county and city governments. I am not saying annexation is the only way (or best way) to grow a cities revenue or economy (and Columbus knows this which is why it has been shifting (since the 90s) to a infill based growth not annexation based policy.
Fair enough. Still, this is the traditional way that most "sun-belt" cities have grown. It's just that it was impossible around many traditional cities in the midwest (even moreso the Northeast), either because townships were hard to annex under state law, or because the rural townships all incorporated, forming an "iron ring" surrounding the city.

Either way, Columbus, like Indianapolis, ended up with a large percentage of land within its borders which was built up post WW2. This is not something which happened too many other places north of the Mason-Dixon line, and east of the Mississippi.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2013, 09:25 AM
 
Location: Detroit
983 posts, read 1,428,107 times
Reputation: 1065
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBideon View Post
The Twin Cities and Columbus have economic and desirability momentum. Call it a tie.
If there were any possibility of a tie it would be between the Twin Cities and Detroit. Both of these metros are a clear step above Columbus
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.
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