Indianapolis's population estimates are out! (Michigan City, Alexandria: living, metro area, area)

[chalcedony]

Originally Posted by SuperTramp1

Wasn't trying to.

You're correct. There is more urban area of Indy outside of downtown. However, there are still significant areas of nothing but subdivisions (which are highly populated because there is no commercial space) WITHIN the city limits, which in most urban areas, would fall OUTSIDE of the city proper.

I see your point, and I'd agree that Indy definitely overstates its prominence (just today I saw an article calling it now the 11th largest city in the country--do we know for sure that we passed up Jacksonville again?). But I also don't know that it matters too much unless it were being used fraudulently, but since I don't think Indy is trying to add dead bodies to the Census, that's probably not a huge problem.

But you say that in "most urban areas", the "subdivisions....would fall OUTSIDE of the city proper"--I wouldn't be so sure about that. Yes, a disproportionate amount of Indianapolis is suburban, and what you're describing might be true for cities with particularly small land area like Newark, St. Louis, maybe Pittsburgh. But keep in mind all of the other "overstated" cities you list did the exact same thing--annex the suburbs. Some of them are annexing to this day. I'd most definitely add Louisville to your "overstated" list, which is now apparently the 17th or 18th largest city after doing its own Unigov just a few years ago.

Virtually every southern city has very suburban, even exurban--heck, even cow pasture--areas that fall in the city limits. Jackson, MS has got to be once of the least densely populated cities on the planet, and it just annexed again a few years ago to staunch the outward flow. Memphis has been doing the same thing, I think.

But even the dense, intensely urban Northeastern cities have areas that might pass for subdivisions. Northeast Philadelphia was settled mostly in the late 1940s through the 1960s. It's probably more walkable and denser than similar neighborhoods in INdianapolis, but no one would move to Philadelphia seeking an urban experience and look at Northeast Philly. Same could be said with West Roxbury in Boston--and Boston's a tightly packed city. But West Roxbury is within the city limits and looks more suburban than some of the actual suburbs, like Cambridge or Brookline.

But I'm not going to talk about this any more because, as Toxic Toast recognized, it's all theoretical and highly subjective and doesn't really matter a hill of beans.

[ischyros]

Originally Posted by Toxic Toast

As far as metro area, Indy comes in around the mid-30's. Yes, Indianapolis has a population a disporportionate to its metro. Big ******* deal.

I personally think that might be a good thing. It means that the majority of people in the Indianapolis metro, live in Indianapolis itself instead of the suburbs. As opposed to cities like, say, Denver, where a couple of suburbs are a couple of the largest cities in the state! The majority of people in Denver, actually live in a suburb of Denver as opposed to Denver itself. Aurora alone has more than half the population of Denver. And in the entire Denver metro, less than a quarter of the people live within the city of Denver.

I see a lot of people here complaining about people living in the suburbs and that the suburbs wouldn't exist without Indianapolis. So to them, the fact that Indy is 12th largest in population but the metro is 30-something (thus meaning a huge amount in the metro live in the city itself instead of the suburbs) should be a great thing!

[GregHenry]

Originally Posted by SuperTramp1

There are clearly a lot of Indy folks with chips on their shoulders. Not once have I said I dislike the city. I simply browse a lot of the city boards and, of the ones I read, no other urban populace overstates their city's national significance like those of Indianapolis, often based on erroneous statistics like "city population". Of course, I don't read the boards from El Paso, Charlotte, etc. so maybe it's just as bad there.


It's a simple, measurable way to understand how city population is overstating the true size of an urban area. For that, it's perfect. As for implying importance, population is far from the only way to measure that, but it's certainly significant, especially when comparing cities within the same country.

Good comment.

Originally Posted by Toxic Toast

It is pretty common for outsiders to pop into this forum and complain about the city limits of Indianapolis, and try to point out to us, the residents, that it doesn't matter and that we are stupid for acknowledging that we are the 12th biggest city as though any of us chose to annex Marion County.

Guess what, we don't care. Guess what else, Indianapolis is the 12th biggest city in the country by population. If you have a problem with that, too bad. It is a fact. Look it up.

As far as metro area, Indy comes in around the mid-30's. Yes, Indianapolis has a population a disporportionate to its metro. Big ******* deal.

Indy cannot be both 12th and 39th. One loses credibility and appears a cheerleader by claiming the inflated, irrelevant number.

[Toxic Toast]

Originally Posted by GregHenry

Indy cannot be both 12th and 39th. One loses credibility and appears a cheerleader by claiming the inflated, irrelevant number.

One is a city population, one is a metro population. It CAN be both, because that is what the FACTS dictate. Every metro has both, you can check the census if you like. They'll all be there. Boston, Milwaukee, Oklahoma City, Omaha, Miami, etc. Everyone of them has BOTH a city pop and metro pop. Let me know if you find one that doesn't.

[GregHenry]

Originally Posted by Toxic Toast

One is a city population, one is a metro population. It CAN be both,

"It" can't be both.

There's only one "it" that matters in discussing cities. Comparing Indy vs. Boston using political boundaries is just pulling a bait-and-switch on a reader. People don't come here because they deeply care about arbitrary boundaries. People come here to discuss which city they ought live. Introducing arbitrary lines into that discussion does a reader no service and is really just hometown chest-beating using a misleading statistic.

[Toxic Toast]

Originally Posted by GregHenry

"It" can't be both.

There's only one "it" that matters in discussing cities. Comparing Indy vs. Boston using political boundaries is just pulling a bait-and-switch on a reader. People don't come here because they deeply care about arbitrary boundaries. People come here to discuss which city they ought live. Introducing arbitrary lines into that discussion does a reader no service and is really just hometown chest-beating using a misleading statistic.

Evidentally some people (yourself included, I mean, you are here talking about it) come here to talk about "arbitrary boundaries," considering this thread is 8 pages long; the third highest amount of pages dedicated to a topic on the front page of the forum.

Indianapolis, by population, is the 12th biggest city in the USA. You may not like it, and you may not agree with how that came to be, but that does not make it untrue. It is a fact. There is nothing you can do about it.

[GregHenry]

Originally Posted by Toxic Toast

Evidentally some people (yourself included, I mean, you are here talking about it) come here to talk about "arbitrary boundaries,"

Only to smack down the people who erroneously use them.

Indianapolis, by population, is the 12th biggest city in the USA.

You're off by about 25. Stop it.

[Toxic Toast]

Originally Posted by GregHenry

Only to smack down the people who erroneously use them.

I was going to debate this, but I decided to have sex with my wife instead.

Originally Posted by GregHenry

You're off by about 25. Stop it.

Well, according to the United States Census, I am spot on.

List of United States cities by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Check number 12.

[A2DAC1985]

Originally Posted by GregHenry

"It" can't be both.

There's only one "it" that matters in discussing cities. Comparing Indy vs. Boston using political boundaries is just pulling a bait-and-switch on a reader. People don't come here because they deeply care about arbitrary boundaries. People come here to discuss which city they ought live. Introducing arbitrary lines into that discussion does a reader no service and is really just hometown chest-beating using a misleading statistic.

I'm sorry. But I think is wrong in every sense of the phrase, "I think this is wrong".

Arbitrary Boundaries Matter, Whether or not People Accept Them.

Where do your kids go to school? I bet it's decided by arbitrary boundaries.
Where do your taxes go? I bet it's decided by arbitrary boundaries.
Where do the most funds for public transportation go? I bet it's decided by arbitrary boundaries.
Where does a new Apple Store open up? I bet it's decided by arbitrary boundaries.
Where are there differences in property taxes? I bet it's decided by arbitrary boundaries.



NO ONE is saying Indianapolis is more important than Boston or DC, or anything of the sort. The only thing FACTUAL is that Indianapolis , within it's arbitrary boundaries or not, has more people there.


Are you going to say that because I stand next to Michael Moore I weigh 300 pounds?

If I get a group picture with Michael Moore with 9 of my closest friends, does that mean that Michael Moore weighs 2,000 pounds?

Or do you separate the people around Michael Moore from Michael Moore's weight? Because if you don't, anyone could say the Zionsville, IN has 800,000+ people living there. After all, the things around Michael Moore add to Michael Moore's weight, right? Or are they separate entities?



Or do boundaries really matter?

[msamhunter]

Originally Posted by GregHenry

"It" can't be both.

There's only one "it" that matters in discussing cities. Comparing Indy vs. Boston using political boundaries is just pulling a bait-and-switch on a reader. People don't come here because they deeply care about arbitrary boundaries. People come here to discuss which city they ought live. Introducing arbitrary lines into that discussion does a reader no service and is really just hometown chest-beating using a misleading statistic.

Actually it can be both ways. There are CD posts where people are specific when it comes to talking about MSA to the point to where it is in the subject head. In general when someone is talking about say Cleveland, they are not referring to Lorain, Cleveland Heights, Solon or any other suburb. They are in gist talking about the city of Cleveland. It's the same with any place on these forums. When people talk about Chicago, they are not really talking about Lake Forest, Cicero or any other suburb, they are talking about the City of Chicago. STL isn't referring to St. Charles county or East St. Louis. It is STL proper. No different for Indianapolis. No one is talking about Beech Grove or Speedway here unless explicitly stated.

The whole MSA thing comes in, usually on the City vs City when one city proper starts to not measure up in somebody's competition and then that MSA gets thrown in there to bump up whatever city. Urban Area his hardly ever discussed on here and Urban area and MSA are not the same as urban area isn't used nearly to the extent of city propers and MSAs. If you really want to be yet more technical about it, the best use would be media market.

Any city should be able to stand toe to toe with any other city and man up. Relying on the suburbs is like you taking a thumping and running to grab your boys so you can actually fight back because your too much of a punk to do it yourself. Cities have their place, MSAs have their place, both are valid. For instance, GDP you can do by MSA, State and I believe by county as well, whereas UCR is strictly by municipality (City). Seeing as how not every municipality releases their numbers to the FBI, trying to do a UCR by MSA is automatically wrong since all of the reported numbers are not there for every city, town, village, etc.

Also as I stated earlier in which you agreed with, no one cares about a suburb. No one moves because of a suburb. They move because of a city. Burbs are a dime a dozen and who's going to know where Cassopolis is without google or being a local? Who's going to know what area it belongs to without looking at a map. How about Follett. Where's that? There's overall area which is based on core city and then there's where you pay taxes and only then does any suburb really come into play.