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.
Please stop. San Jose is the fastest-growing job market in the country; it's gorgeous; the weather is idyllic, and people around the world will always want to be there.
not really.
Texas is the fastest growing state and you have to remember Silicon Valley is VERY exclusive. you have to have a high tech degree to get in. most of the US population doesnt have that.
2nd Californiastan is killing its business climate so its a matter of time before Silicon valley loses its importance to other areas that are similar to SV in the future but with a much better business climate. Austin Texas comes to mind on this regard.
The bigger news for me isn't the city's growth, it's the urban area's growth relative to its geographic peers--western side of the Appalachians to the edge of the Great Plains from the Ohio Valley North.
1990: 12th largest behind Chicago, Detroit, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Buffalo, and Columbus.
2000: 10th, passing Buffalo and Columbus
2010: 9th, passing Milwaukee
2020: if the last decade growth rates hold, a jump to 5th, passing Cleveland, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, and Kansas City.
Hypothetical 1 million+ urban areas in the area in 2020:
Chicago 8.91 million
Detroit 3.57
Minneapolis 2.94
St. Louis 2.23
Indianapolis 1.81
Cleveland 1.78
Cincinnati 1.76
Pittsburgh 1.72
Kansas City 1.69
Columbus 1.65
Milwaukee 1.45
Louisville 1.10
The bigger news for me isn't the city's growth, it's the urban area's growth relative to its geographic peers--western side of the Appalachians to the edge of the Great Plains from the Ohio Valley North.
1990: 12th largest behind Chicago, Detroit, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Buffalo, and Columbus.
2000: 10th, passing Buffalo and Columbus
2010: 9th, passing Milwaukee
2020: if the last decade growth rates hold, a jump to 5th, passing Cleveland, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, and Kansas City.
Hypothetical 1 million+ urban areas in the area in 2020:
Chicago 8.91 million
Detroit 3.57
Minneapolis 2.94
St. Louis 2.23
Indianapolis 1.81
Cleveland 1.78
Cincinnati 1.76
Pittsburgh 1.72
Kansas City 1.69
Columbus 1.65
Milwaukee 1.45
Louisville 1.10
The US Census clearly defines a city by the total urban area within city limits which is the "official" count. A city is a city and a suburb is a suburb. When lump together you then have "metro" population which is entirely different than "city" population. The numbers you posted count suburban population outside a city's territory. The US Census is the "official" source so most of the country will have to go with that. That's why Chicago isn't the 2nd largest city because it's population can not claim the rest of urban Cook County of 5 million beyond it's city limits. You're theory sounds good but we have the accept the facts from the official score keeper which is the US Census. A city is that a city. You see Metro is an entirely different population category. That's why this thread was tittled " Indy Passing Detroit "City" Pop to Hit 1 Million??" not Indy Passing Detroit "Metro" Pop to Hit 1 Million?? big difference.
not really.
Texas is the fastest growing state and you have to remember Silicon Valley is VERY exclusive. you have to have a high tech degree to get in. most of the US population doesnt have that.
2nd Californiastan is killing its business climate so its a matter of time before Silicon valley loses its importance to other areas that are similar to SV in the future but with a much better business climate. Austin Texas comes to mind on this regard.
Interesting that California was mentioned. There are cities are and about to go bankrupt. Cities like Stockton, San Bernardino, etc even San Jose. Making it hard to do business in California certainly doesn't create any incentive for growth. I know because I once had a business of my own. It's crazy what they are doing out there. Over regulation and taxation. No business in their right mind wants that. Some people don't get that this is one of the biggest reasons why job growth is so slow. This is why a lot of jobs have gone over seas. Just look at Michigan. Indiana is fortunate to not travel down that pathway. California is a beautiful state but the job and business killing climate has got to change or it will become Michigan on the West Coast.
The US Census clearly defines a city by the total urban area within city limits which is the "official" count. A city is a city and a suburb is a suburb. When lump together you then have "metro" population which is entirely different than "city" population. The numbers you posted count suburban population outside a city's territory. The US Census is the "official" source so most of the country will have to go with that. That's why Chicago isn't the 2nd largest city because it's population can not claim the rest of urban Cook County of 5 million beyond it's city limits. You're theory sounds good but we have the accept the facts from the official score keeper which is the US Census. A city is that a city. You see Metro is an entirely different population category. That's why this thread was tittled " Indy Passing Detroit "City" Pop to Hit 1 Million??" not Indy Passing Detroit "Metro" Pop to Hit 1 Million?? big difference.
I know the title says "city". My point is city population isn't terribly important. It's an arbitrary boundary set by municipalities and states. DC, San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, etc have fewer people than Indy. Jacksonville has more. So?
Metro population isn't just city and suburb either, which is why it is also a poor measure. A major city can have a couple of suburbs in a neighborhoring county. This neighborhood can also have a lot of farmland and maybe even a large city thirty minutes further out. Kind of like Kankakee being part of the Chicago MSA. Except Kankakee isn't a suburb. It isn't part of Chicago. Nor is all of the farmland surrounding it. Yet it is part of the Chicago MSA.
An urban area isn't what you claim it is either. 1-Urban area is an officially designated census term. 2-There are parts of the city of Indianapolis that aren't even in the Indianapolis urban area, namely undeveloped areas of Perry, Decatur, Franklin, and Pike townships. 3-The urban area includes the developed areas of suburbs and unincorporated areas (like much of Center Grove), but it excludes areas that aren't contiguous suburbs within the metro like Putnam county, Brown County, and rural areas within the metro. It includes only developed areas of a certain density (suburban levels or greater) that are contiguous or nearly contiguous with other developed areas. It is the true "footprint" of the city.
Of all three measures, it is easily the best in terms of giving you an idea of how many people live in an area that would be described as "greater Indianapolis" (Greenwood, Carmel, Fishers, Noblesville, Zionsville, but not Nashville, Trafalgar, Sheridan, etc.).
Indy will likely pass 1 million+ 30 or so years from now, as will several other cities with large municipal boundaries before then (Austin, Jacksonville, etc.). That's not nearly as significant as the Indianapolis urban area having a real chance to pass the urban areas of Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Cincinnati in the next decade.
I know the title says "city". My point is city population isn't terribly important. It's an arbitrary boundary set by municipalities and states. DC, San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, etc have fewer people than Indy. Jacksonville has more. So?
Metro population isn't just city and suburb either, which is why it is also a poor measure. A major city can have a couple of suburbs in a neighborhoring county. This neighborhood can also have a lot of farmland and maybe even a large city thirty minutes further out. Kind of like Kankakee being part of the Chicago MSA. Except Kankakee isn't a suburb. It isn't part of Chicago. Nor is all of the farmland surrounding it. Yet it is part of the Chicago MSA.
An urban area isn't what you claim it is either. 1-Urban area is an officially designated census term. 2-There are parts of the city of Indianapolis that aren't even in the Indianapolis urban area, namely undeveloped areas of Perry, Decatur, Franklin, and Pike townships. 3-The urban area includes the developed areas of suburbs and unincorporated areas (like much of Center Grove), but it excludes areas that aren't contiguous suburbs within the metro like Putnam county, Brown County, and rural areas within the metro. It includes only developed areas of a certain density (suburban levels or greater) that are contiguous or nearly contiguous with other developed areas. It is the true "footprint" of the city.
Of all three measures, it is easily the best in terms of giving you an idea of how many people live in an area that would be described as "greater Indianapolis" (Greenwood, Carmel, Fishers, Noblesville, Zionsville, but not Nashville, Trafalgar, Sheridan, etc.).
Indy will likely pass 1 million+ 30 or so years from now, as will several other cities with large municipal boundaries before then (Austin, Jacksonville, etc.). That's not nearly as significant as the Indianapolis urban area having a real chance to pass the urban areas of Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Cincinnati in the next decade.
You're right. My mistake. Take Dekalb, IL then. It's part of the MSA. You have to drive about 20 miles due east through cornfields to get to the western edge of Chicago's suburbs around Campton Hills. You certainly don't feel like you're in "Greater Chicago" when you're out in the middle of those cornfields. That's what's wrong w/ the MSA standard.
BTW, urban pop stat that impresses me the most. Of the 40 largest urban areas in the northern and central US (basically VA/NC and KY/TN state lines extended just north of Vegas to the Pacific), here are the fastest growing UAs in the last decade:
1-Sacramento 23.7%
2-Indy 22.0%
3-Columbus, OH 20.7%
4-Denver 19.6%
5-Fresno 18.0%
6-Portland 16.9%
7-Washington DC 16.6%
8-Richmond VA 16.5%
Avg growth of all 40 was 6.8%. Now that is impressive.
There's nothing "wrong" with that, as there's no population in a cornfield artificially bumping up the MSA total. With the cornfield in or out, the MSA population is unchanged.
There's nothing "wrong" with that, as there's no population in a cornfield artificially bumping up the MSA total. With the cornfield in or out, the MSA population is unchanged.
That's not always the case. The issues is that MSAs are formed with entire counties, so you may have some suburbs, then 30 miles of desert or fields, and then a major city on the other side that doesn't commute to the core city. Because enough from the suburbs do, the entire county is included.
Example:
Inland Empire/Riverside as an MSA is over 2x the size of Riverside's urban area. The MSA includes San Bernadino and Riverside Counties...even towns/cities 100 miles across the desert from the urban area...just because they happen to be in the same county.
Nashville picks up towns 80 miles away from the city. Again, just becausee they happen to be in the same county as a couple of suburbs immediately adjoining the city (but 50 miles away from those suburbs). The MSA is about 65% bigger than the urban area as a result.
Miami-Ft Lauderdale-Pompano is one larger contiguous area of development with commuters going between the core cities. It is surrounded by swampland, so outlying areas with substantial population aren't picked up strictly on the basis of an outlying city coincidentally existing in Dade or Broward Cos. Its MSA is only 1% bigger than the urban area.
Taking entire counties distorts the true urban forms of cities when it comes to counting areas. If the Hamilton Co line went up to Peru and Kokomo, Peru and Kokomo would be included in the MSA thanks to so many people from Fishers, Carmel, Westfield, and Noblesville, commuting into Indy. Would drawing those lines differently make Kokomo or Peru and more a part of Indianapolis? Not really.
Urban areas provide a much more granular (and accurate) picture of the relative sizes of different cities and their outlying commuters.
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.
indy is the capital so we control the state instead of vice versa.
