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.
Yeah it already happened as of the 2010 census. Indianapolis is at 829,000 and Detroit is at 714,000.
Indianapolis is over 220 sq miles more than Detroit though (2.5+ times the land area), and Detroits metro is 2.5 times the population (4.3 million vs 1.75 million).
Same can be said for those with declining city populations using their MSA to boost them up. Bottom line, it isn't a statistic, it's pure raw numbers and they fall where they fall. I find a few things funny on this site. First everyone talks about living in the city and how city life is so this and that but first to tout a suburb to mask the failings of their city. Second, everyone tends to come down on cities that are actually growing which makes no sense as obviously they are doing something right while cities that are loosing population just aren't doing.
BTW, Dallas is part of the 4th largest MSA, Houston is 6th, Phoenix is 14th, San Diego is 17th, San Anton is 25th and Cleveland is actually 28th. How did those cities even have the possibility of getting put in your description?
There has always been two aspects. The first is overall area, ie the MSA itself. The second is the locale you pay taxes to. We will take Cleveland, yes overall a nice area with things that people will look for i.e. the lake, cedar point etc. That overall area is what some 4000k+ sq miles of land? That's a large swath of land to choose from as it is with all MSAs. Great for the state of Ohio as long as it is a positive migration of people into the state, not so much for Cleveland. Now take the city proper and you see that you've lost 17% of your population from census to census for various reasons. That points to a city whose overall health is not good and obviously the if you build it they will come mantra Cleveland is doing, isn't working.
Staying in Ohio, let's now take Columbus one of those cities you mentioned. A smaller MSA at 1.8 vs. 2 for Cleveland (not a huge difference btw) but actually grew. Like Cleveland, they have attributes, more centralized, state capital, OSU. Take a growing MSA and take the city proper which grew 10% from census to census and you have a healthy city that people are finding attractive, moreso than Cleveland as Columbus is growing and Cleveland has lost roughly 40% of its population over that past 40 years.
Honestly, it almost sounds like jealousy people have towards cities like Austin, Columbus, Fort Worth, Indy etc. esp. from those whose areas have diminished. Instead of harping about what makes a "real" city and holding on to former glory, maybe those cities should be looking at these cities to figure out what they are doing to be successful, how are they not only retaining people, but getting new people in the process.
Yeah it already happened as of the 2010 census. Indianapolis is at 829,000 and Detroit is at 714,000.
Indianapolis is over 220 sq miles more than Detroit though (2.5+ times the land area), and Detroits metro is 2.5 times the population (4.3 million vs 1.75 million).
"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.
Yea, it's hard to believe Indy and Columbus have larger city populations that Detroit. It's very likely Milwaukee will pass Detroit by the end of this decade too.
"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.
adjacent cities in a metro are like a double edged sword.
They do provide a labor force, but then again it would serve the city better if that labor forced resided in the city itself.
They do patronize city's activities, etc, but then again they rob main cities of taxes.
I saw an article that discussed the financial situation cities would be in if they had maintained the boundaries they had in 1930.
People look at annexation as a bad thing, but when 75% of your upper class population just ups and moves west of your city boundary, the wealth of the city is moving too. The only thing to do is move your boundary further west to lasso them back in.
some might say that will just cause the city to sprawl cause the boundaries will push further and further, but in Houston for example, the richest areas are right in the middle of the city limits. The top 6 or 7 richest areas are not near the edge at all.
suburbs are often richer than the central city in a metro and can contribute to the decline of a city big time
"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.
It absolutely matters that Indianapolis is much more than twice the physical size of Detroit. As Americans fled almost all central cities for more suburban lives, those cities that were able to retain these tax payers within their city limits benefitted greatly. If Detroit were able to extend their city limits to 365 square miles like Indy, it would have a greater tax base and more income to deal with its issues. While it might not solve everything that Detroit faces, to say that it doesn't matter is just wrong.
It absolutely matters that Indianapolis is much more than twice the physical size of Detroit. As Americans fled almost all central cities for more suburban lives, those cities that were able to retain these tax payers within their city limits benefitted greatly. If Detroit were able to extend their city limits to 365 square miles like Indy, it would have a greater tax base and more income to deal with its issues. While it might not solve everything that Detroit faces, to say that it doesn't matter is just wrong.
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.
I don't think Indy being greater than Detroit in terms of city proper population matters much. Detroit is still a much more populous metro area. Drop someone off in the middle of downtown Detroit and then pick them up, drop them off in the middle of Indy, and then ask them which city they think is bigger and they'll probably say, "Detroit."
Last edited by Maintainschaos; 08-16-2011 at 03:08 PM..
I don't think Indy being greater than Detroit in terms of city proper population matters much. Detroit is still a much more populous metro area. Drop someone off in the middle of downtown Detroit and then pick them up, drop them off in the middle of Indy, and then ask them which city they think is bigger and they'll probably say, "Detroit."
Ask them which one looks better and they'll say Indy, what's ur point?
Detroits density is almost 2.5x Indianapolis. If they were same size, Detroit would have 1.91 Million in which it had back in the day(1.84). Atleast Detroit can say theyve had 1.8 million people in the city, I dont think Indianapolis will ever hit that mark, i'm not to sure Indy will even hit 1 Million. I know its bad to say, but Detroit has lost more people than Indy has right now, yet they still have 700,000+
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.
