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 02-17-2011, 04:34 PM
 
Location: Mexico City, formerly Columbus, Ohio
13,107 posts, read 13,535,923 times
Reputation: 5794

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Min-Chi-Cbus View Post
Your method is flawed....you are using municipal city populations instead of metro populations. Cities that are landlocked like Minneapolis and Chicago can't grow nearly as fast, but their metros can. MSP grew about 16% from 1990-2000, and my guess is that it grew 12%-14% from 2000-2010. But what's the point of guessing -- we'll just wait for the Census results. Columbus, Indy, KC, etc. did not grow much faster than that metro wide.

I DO NOT understand why folks who live in cities with larger municipal populations ONLY refer to the municipal population when comparing cities, instead of the metro population. If you want to go that route, then Minneapolis city is HALF the population of Columbus, yet it has twice the downtown amenities.......so does that make it 4 times better? It doesn't work that way!
Wait, so if we can't compare municipal city populations because of a difference in size, how does it make sense to do that for MSAs when they are all different sizes as well?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-17-2011, 04:35 PM
 
Location: Mexico City, formerly Columbus, Ohio
13,107 posts, read 13,535,923 times
Reputation: 5794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Min-Chi-Cbus View Post
Great counterpoint. I have references, you give statements.
You take a few comments on a message board and apply it to all residents of an entire state? Way to rationalize.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2011, 05:37 PM
 
Location: Limbo
6,475 posts, read 6,203,029 times
Reputation: 6244
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81 View Post
Wait, so if we can't compare municipal city populations because of a difference in size, how does it make sense to do that for MSAs when they are all different sizes as well?
Because the size of a particular MSA isn't tied to the central city's population.

The best way to analyze growth is to measure the entire region, not just one or two core cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2011, 05:48 PM
 
1,054 posts, read 1,838,631 times
Reputation: 699
Quote:
Originally Posted by emcee squared View Post
Because the size of a particular MSA isn't tied to the central city's population.

The best way to analyze growth is to measure the entire region, not just one or two core cities.
Exactly. Look at Des Moines, IA. The city core grew by 5,000 people or 2%, but the metro grew by 86,000 at 18%. You have to look at the big picture when dealing with cities that have no land to grow.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2011, 06:20 PM
 
Location: Mexico City, formerly Columbus, Ohio
13,107 posts, read 13,535,923 times
Reputation: 5794
Quote:
Originally Posted by emcee squared View Post
Because the size of a particular MSA isn't tied to the central city's population.

The best way to analyze growth is to measure the entire region, not just one or two core cities.
I don't think I would agree. After all, an MSA can be growing, yet a central city's population could be falling, and vice versa. The census just showed downtown Chicago losing 200K people, but showed the suburbs gaining people. I don't necessarily see the MSA in that situation as the best overall picture because it would only show growth. Without the central city, there is no MSA to begin with. If anything, both the MSA and the central city and their respective populations together give the best measure. I just gave city proper populations, you want to use just the MSA. Here are the MSAs for the same cities mentioned above.

2008-2009 MSA Estimated Growth Rate
Minneapolis: +1.0%
Chicago: +0.7%
Indianapolis: +1.3%
Cleveland: -0.1%
Columbus: +1.2%
Cincinnati: +0.6%
Kansas City: +1.1%

2000-2009 MSA Estimated Growth Rate
Minneapolis: +10.1%
Chicago: +5.3%
Indianapolis: +14.3%
Cleveland: -2.6%
Columbus: +11.7%
Cincinnati: +8.1%
Kansas City: +12.6%

2000-2010 MSA Actual Growth Rate
Indianapolis: +19.8%

So based on estimates only (which have been very much off when actual numbers are released), the cities of Columbus, Kansas City and Indianapolis are all growing faster than MSP, no matter if you use city proper or MSA. But again, these are going to vary quite a bit when actual numbers come out. Indy's growth is one of the few examples so far where estimates were way too low. It could really go either way for the rest of them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2011, 06:36 PM
 
Location: Limbo
6,475 posts, read 6,203,029 times
Reputation: 6244
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81 View Post
I don't think I would agree. After all, an MSA can be growing, yet a central city's population could be falling, and vice versa. The census just showed downtown Chicago losing 200K people, but showed the suburbs gaining people. I don't necessarily see the MSA in that situation as the best overall picture because it would only show growth. Without the central city, there is no MSA to begin with. If anything, both the MSA and the central city and their respective populations together give the best measure. I just gave city proper populations, you want to use just the MSA. Here are the MSAs for the same cities mentioned above.

2008-2009 MSA Estimated Growth Rate
Minneapolis: +1.0%
Chicago: +0.7%
Indianapolis: +1.3%
Cleveland: -0.1%
Columbus: +1.2%
Cincinnati: +0.6%
Kansas City: +1.1%

2000-2009 MSA Estimated Growth Rate
Minneapolis: +10.1%
Chicago: +5.3%
Indianapolis: +14.3%
Cleveland: -2.6%
Columbus: +11.7%
Cincinnati: +8.1%
Kansas City: +12.6%

2000-2010 MSA Actual Growth Rate
Indianapolis: +19.8%

So based on estimates only (which have been very much off when actual numbers are released), the cities of Columbus, Kansas City and Indianapolis are all growing faster than MSP, no matter if you use city proper or MSA. But again, these are going to vary quite a bit when actual numbers come out. Indy's growth is one of the few examples so far where estimates were way too low. It could really go either way for the rest of them.
I understand your argument. I guess I could have said, "because the size of a particular MSA isn't necessarily tied to the central city's population."

Still, the Twin cities are peculiar because Minneapolis and St. Paul are so small, both population and area wise, compared to the rest of the metro.

Here's to hoping that Minneapolis has grown more than 1% in the last 10 years
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2011, 06:52 PM
 
Location: Mexico City, formerly Columbus, Ohio
13,107 posts, read 13,535,923 times
Reputation: 5794
Quote:
Originally Posted by emcee squared View Post
I understand your argument. I guess I could have said, "because the size of a particular MSA isn't necessarily tied to the central city's population."

Still, the Twin cities are peculiar because Minneapolis and St. Paul are so small, both population and area wise, compared to the rest of the metro.

Here's to hoping that Minneapolis has grown more than 1% in the last 10 years
I'm sure it's a lot higher than 1%. At worst, I think 5% growth is about as low as it will go.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2011, 07:06 PM
 
Location: Blue Ash, Ohio (Cincinnati)
2,786 posts, read 5,689,384 times
Reputation: 705
Quote:
Originally Posted by kshe95girl View Post
What, you mean to tell me that there are other cities in the Midwest besides Chicago and St Louis?
Oh, it's all flyover country. Does it really matter?
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