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.
Ask them which one looks better and they'll say Indy, what's ur point?
Sigh. The point was the first sentence of the three-sentence statement. Saying that Indy is more populous than Detroit is just a numbers game, just like saying Jacksonville, FL is more populous than Miami, FL. In the end, we all realize the Detroit area is more populous than the Indy area.
Sigh. The point was the first sentence of the three-sentence statement. Saying that Indy is more populous than Detroit is just a numbers game, just like saying Jacksonville, FL is more populous than Miami, FL. In the end, we all realize the Detroit area is more populous than the Indy area.
I agree, because Jacksonville is 767 Sq miles Land and Miami is 35 Sq, big difference, only implementing that its a numbers game. If Jacksonville is 35 sq miles, its only 85,000.
Indianapolis is a landlocked city just like Detroit and has been for 40 years so that excuse doesn't fly as it has nothing left to annex and hasn't had anything left to annex for 40 years. That's no different than Jacksonville, Nashville, Denver or any other city that had done some type of consolidation around that time frame. The point being, Indianapolis still grew over the past 40 years census to census with the exception of the 1980 census in which it lost population. The difference is, Indy was better at re-making itself whereas Detroit stayed stagnant and did nothing to diversify itself relying solely on the big 3 to always be at the top. That was typical rust belt thinking. No different than Gary and NWI thinking that the steel mills would always employ 100k people and gainful employment by sectors that catered to that industry. All of them were wrong while a city like Pittsburgh picked up on the need to diversify and thus did so even with the clout of US Steel looming over them trying to do what they did in Gary and strong arming the city to make sure they stayed top dog.
It isn't an issue of land size. It's an issue of poor planning and even poorer implementation.
Consider what Indy would be today without the Unigov consolidation of the late 60s? That suburban land grab MATTERED to Indianapolis' future. It reclaimed white flight tax base that was abandoning the city proper. It got Indy over the bigger hump and put it out of the danger that the white flight posed. Even with the land grab, the white flight continued through the 70s and Indy lost population. If Indy had not consolidated, I suspect that it too would have suffered more decline because new investment doesn't usually come to economically unhealthy cities. As a side note, Indy has an advantage over Detroit, it's the seat of its state government. State's usually don't let their capital cities fail.
Large older cities that did not annex land and tax base during the suburban "white flight" of the 50s, 60s and 70s have typically suffered. Though not an extreme case, even San Francisco lost population in the 1960, 1970 and 1980 Censuses. In the case of Pittsburgh, it's been losing municipal population every Census since 1960 and barely grew at all the previous two decades.
Sigh. The point was the first sentence of the three-sentence statement. Saying that Indy is more populous than Detroit is just a numbers game, just like saying Jacksonville, FL is more populous than Miami, FL. In the end, we all realize the Detroit area is more populous than the Indy area.
Interestingly, Miami is one of the few landlocked cities in the US that didn't lose Census population during the flight to the burbs. It's grown each and every Census since being established. That's a pretty good feat for a city as physically tiny as Miami proper. Oddly enough, some of Miami's older suburban areas lost population while the city center grew. For example, Hialeah lost ~8K of its residents in the 2000s.
In the last year and a half, (tens of?) thousands of previously vacant residential units in recently constructed buildings have filled with residents. I'd dare say that Miami is well on its way to besting its 2010 Census numbers in 2020.
Sigh. The point was the first sentence of the three-sentence statement. Saying that Indy is more populous than Detroit is just a numbers game, just like saying Jacksonville, FL is more populous than Miami, FL. In the end, we all realize the Detroit area is more populous than the Indy area.
Sigh, you guys don't get it, it's not really a matter of Indy having a larger population, it's a matter of why Indianapolis is now larger than Detroit which everyone who continues to harp on MSA population continues to duck and dodge. There's a reason why Detroit has had such a massive loss in population and there's a reason why it's one of the few MSAs to actually lose population, even natural births over a 10 year period can sustain an MSA population and yet it still managed to lose population. It goes back to what I said earlier, declining cities looking down on growing areas holding on to what they used to have instead of learning and adapting like cities that have been growing for 10-20 years and still finding innovative ways to retain people and bring in new people. Past glory will eventually fade all together.
Looking at Detroit what was once some very fine housing stock is literally being bulldozed in bulk. Like it's literally fading away before our very eyes and no one wants to change it, or try anything different. There's the saying, pride go'eth (sp) before the fall or something like that. I still have family in the motor city and would hate to see the city just fade into oblivion.
Location: Detroit's eastside, downtown Detroit in near future!
2,053 posts, read 4,392,054 times
Reputation: 699
Quote:
Originally Posted by msamhunter
Sigh, you guys don't get it, it's not really a matter of Indy having a larger population, it's a matter of why Indianapolis is now larger than Detroit which everyone who continues to harp on MSA population continues to duck and dodge. There's a reason why Detroit has had such a massive loss in population and there's a reason why it's one of the few MSAs to actually lose population, even natural births over a 10 year period can sustain an MSA population and yet it still managed to lose population. It goes back to what I said earlier, declining cities looking down on growing areas holding on to what they used to have instead of learning and adapting like cities that have been growing for 10-20 years and still finding innovative ways to retain people and bring in new people. Past glory will eventually fade all together.
Looking at Detroit what was once some very fine housing stock is literally being bulldozed in bulk. Like it's literally fading away before our very eyes and no one wants to change it, or try anything different. There's the saying, pride go'eth (sp) before the fall or something like that. I still have family in the motor city and would hate to see the city just fade into oblivion.
really???? hmmmm I didn't know that since one of the main goals of the city is to conserve what we have
Sigh, you guys don't get it, it's not really a matter of Indy having a larger population, it's a matter of why Indianapolis is now larger than Detroit which everyone who continues to harp on MSA population continues to duck and dodge. There's a reason why Detroit has had such a massive loss in population and there's a reason why it's one of the few MSAs to actually lose population, even natural births over a 10 year period can sustain an MSA population and yet it still managed to lose population. It goes back to what I said earlier, declining cities looking down on growing areas holding on to what they used to have instead of learning and adapting like cities that have been growing for 10-20 years and still finding innovative ways to retain people and bring in new people. Past glory will eventually fade all together.
Looking at Detroit what was once some very fine housing stock is literally being bulldozed in bulk. Like it's literally fading away before our very eyes and no one wants to change it, or try anything different. There's the saying, pride go'eth (sp) before the fall or something like that. I still have family in the motor city and would hate to see the city just fade into oblivion.
I'm not saying that Detroit isn't losing population. It's a sad fact that the area is losing population and that schools are being closed. I totally agree that Detroit should be trying every and anything to re innovate itself and stem its population loss. However, just because the "city" of Indy is bigger than the "city" of Detroit doesn't mean that Detroit still doesn't have a LONG way to fall before a) metro Indy (~2.1 million) is bigger than metro Detroit (~4.3 million, >5.5 million in the CSA) b) the metro Indy GDP (~$96 billion) passes metro Detroit GDP (~$200 billion) and c) it becomes an apples-to-apples comparison. Besides, the city-county merger (whatever it was called) added, what, between 200,000 to 300,000 people to the population of the Indy in the 70s? I think it paints a misleading picture when you separate a city from its metro area.
Location: Detroit's eastside, downtown Detroit in near future!
2,053 posts, read 4,392,054 times
Reputation: 699
Quote:
Originally Posted by msamhunter
"over 220 sq miles" So what. San Francisco is but 48 sq mi of land but they are still growing and well larger than Detroit population wise. Land mass is NOT the reason one city is larger than another. If a city has amenities that a person is interested in, they will live there period. Metro wise, yes, the Detroit MSA is larger than Indianapolis but people living in the Detroit MSA doesn't do anything for Detroit. They benefit the locale they pay taxes to, they benefit the state of Michigan but they do not benefit the city of Detroit.
That very post points out specifically what I was referring to; a city who is declining rapidly using its msa to try and bolster itself up. It's the opposite of the original intent of this thread made that cities use proper city population numbers to boost itself up. Both have their place and your post actually falls right in line with the first part of my original post. There's MSA and then there's actual location of residence. One encompasses a large swath of land and the other is more refined. Michigan is a beautiful state, flat broke, finanically inept but beautiful state so yes the Detroit MSA will have areas that are appealing to the masses. The City of Detroit doesn't have very many desirable areas, inept city government and a myriad of other issues that people do not find desirable thus they are leaving the city in droves.
Detroit, like Cleveland has lost people both city proper and MSA while a city like Columbus which I used in my original example has grown at a astounding pace (for the midwest anyway). So my point was, for these declining cities like Detroit, Cleveland, Cincy, STL (STL actually grew as they are becoming more progressive) to stop pointing to what they "used" to be and looking down on these cities that are growing and prospering and figure out what they are doing to retain the people they have all while bringing in new people at the same time.
Location: Detroit's eastside, downtown Detroit in near future!
2,053 posts, read 4,392,054 times
Reputation: 699
The architecture is not being demolished^^^^ I really wish people would STOP thinking this. Out of all of the older cities Detroit has probably demolished less historic buildings than many other cities
I'm not saying that Detroit isn't losing population. It's a sad fact that the area is losing population and that schools are being closed. I totally agree that Detroit should be trying every and anything to re innovate itself and stem its population loss. However, just because the "city" of Indy is bigger than the "city" of Detroit doesn't mean that Detroit still doesn't have a LONG way to fall before a) metro Indy (~2.1 million) is bigger than metro Detroit (~4.3 million, >5.5 million in the CSA) b) the metro Indy GDP (~$96 billion) passes metro Detroit GDP (~$200 billion) and c) it becomes an apples-to-apples comparison. Besides, the city-county merger (whatever it was called) added, what, between 200,000 to 300,000 people to the population of the Indy in the 70s? I think it paints a misleading picture when you separate a city from its metro area.
Again, something that happened 40 years ago is irrelevant as the time passed by is great. Gross GDP, if Detroit didn't have a much larger GDP based off of its large advantage in population, you would have to write the city of as dead. Gross GDP is highly dependent on labor force, therefore dependent on population. Per Capita, Detroit is relatively low to the point in a few years, even gross wise at the pace it's going MSP will surpass it in just gross alone despite having almost 1 million less in total population. That's what I'm referring to and that's why I keep saying "why." It's not a matter that Indy has more people, it's a complex question of why does Indianapolis have more people and what can be done to correct it. Again, it's not a matter of what Detroit was in the past, it's not a matter of whether or not there are still viable areas. We all know what Detroit did, it's impact on American society and world society for that matter. Actually in the early days, Indy and Detroit were competitors in the car manufacturing business until the Model T revolutionized the automobile and transformed Detroit into a global powerhouse.
It's not a matter of viable areas in the metro as there are plenty. Wayne county is a big county, with a lot of wealthy areas. I've done a LOT of lead generation in suburban Wayne county despite our Michigan sales agents trying desperately to stay out of it in favor of Macomb, Oakland, St. Clair and Wasthenaw counties actually, many have refused to go into Wayne. To the point to where I literally would pintpoint a neighborhood and compare it to similar ones in Oakland house by house. So again, that's not the issue. The issue is despite all of these, why is the area in which the MSA lost what 5% which is high for a MSA and the Core city has taken a couple of double digit drops going down. I will reiterate, it's not a matter of what Detroit did, it's not a issue of how large the city is or how large the city feels so why bother continue to argue that point. Obviously, there are issues in Detroit, high poverty, high unemployment, poorly run state government. These are real issues, why is the population dropping so sharply to where Indy, Columbus and Austin has surpassed the city in population?
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.
