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.
Lets try and keep it real here. The western US stereotype that the east coast is full of bombed out ghettoes^^ is absolutely ridiculous.Phoenix-LA have the same exact issues. That picture of the abandoned housing could be from Oakland,st Louis,Philadelphia or Chicago. The fact is that the west has this country and the entire globe teetering on fiancial calamity with its obscene foreclosure rates.
Here on the east coast we have a stable economy and sound regional planning. I don't know what they heck is going on out there in the west. You seem to want to live an east coast lifestyle without having the means or planning to do so. The midwest I can understand, they just fell on hard times but the west + southwest is just a disaster. You build houses for people supporting an economy. You don't build houses to create an economy.
Stockton, Detroit, Las Vegas Post Top Metro Foreclosure Rates According to RealtyTrac(R) 2007 Midyear MSA Report(TM)
California and Ohio Cities Account for 10 of Top 20 Metro Foreclosure Rates
Other cities with foreclosure filing totals among the 10 highest included Chicago, Detroit, Denver, Dallas, Las Vegas, Phoenix and Sacramento.
Foreclosure Activity for the Nation's 100 Largest MSAs - Jan to Jun 2007
We're keeping it real. The street scene in the pictures I posted above could in NO WAY be of Oakland. There is no part of Oakland that looks REMOTELY that bad. As you admitted yourself, that street scene could be from a number of Eastern and Midwestern cities (it's actually North Philadelphia).
The fact is that housing costs are very high in many areas of the West, and people who are moving to this part of the country (mainly East Coasters and Midwesterners) cannot afford to purchase homes, subsequently take out loans, and default on them. Many people who have lived here in the West already own their homes, and it's financially irresponsible people (mainly migrants) who are causing this type of foreclosure crisis. Notice that the foreclosure rate is highest in the fastest growing areas. The reason foreclosure isn't a very large issue in many Eastern and Midwestern cities is the combination of stability of prices and also the stability of growth. It's not like people are in a rush to move to Erie, PA. If half of Illinois, Ohio, andMichigan weren't trying to move to Arizona and Southern California, there wouldn't be half of the issues that there are here in the West concerning volatility in the housing market.
I thoroughly disagree with you on your point about the "weak" economy here in the West. Have you taken a look at Michigan recently? I guess not. What about other Rust Belt locales? Many Western cities have experiences steady, consistent job growth for decades now, something that cannot be said about the majority of the East Coast. I guess that little fact that if California was it's own country it would have the 6th largest economy in the entire world is false? Looks as though this country kinda needs California, doesn't it? Please don't try to tell me that the Western economy is heavily reliant on residential construction, because with the exception of a few areas, that is just a false statement. Raytheon in Tucson? Silicon Valley in California? Honeywell and American Express in Phoenix? Get real.
Planning is a different matter. The West notoriously has poor public transportation in many of its cities. I agree that the way that cities have grown out here discourages decent public transportation. However, that doesn't negate the fact the people are still moving here from all over the country in droves, and that there are many transportation projects that have been established, or are in the making, to increase the attractiveness and viability of public transit out here.
I provided this link before and you apparently didn't read it. It CLEARLY states that in sheer numbers, Atlanta's metro added more people than any other metro area. Yes-it cites big 'gainers' such as Dallas and Phoenix, but big gainers doesn't make it the 'fastest growing.
Micropolitan areas are listed separately
So Phoenix IS NOT the fastest growing metro
Sigh. Just because a metro area adds the greatest number of people, doesn't make it the fastest growing. I understand that Atlanta's metro added more people than Phoenix's. However, Atlanta's metro has about 1.5 million more people than Phoenix's. Therefore, if you look at actual growth RATES, you'll see that Phoenix's metro is growing faster than Atlanta's.
Additionally, metropolitan area is defined as in your article as an area with a core population of 50,000. The population of St. George just recently surpassed the 50K mark, meaning that from the period from 2000-2006, St. George didn't even qualify as being a metro area.
Sigh. Just because a metro area adds the greatest number of people, doesn't make it the fastest growing. I understand that Atlanta's metro added more people than Phoenix's. However, Atlanta's metro has about 1.5 million more people than Phoenix's. Therefore, if you look at actual growth RATES, you'll see that Phoenix's metro is growing faster than Atlanta's.
Population isn't insignificant, but okay fine. But if we're talking growth rates, even Vegas's metro is growing faster than Phoenix's. Also, Raleigh's metro is much smaller than Phoenix's and it's growth rate outpaces Phoenix's
Official doesn't always necessarily mean Accurate.
I've seen other lists that continously change the definition of Metro L.A,especially when it comes to lowering L.A's Ranking.
L.A has gone through so much Bashing,and now this City has to put up with Inaccuracies based on False Statistics.
I"m here to make the Corrections that I can.
I don't think it's false, but I do think it's definition of metro areas. The primary statistical area, I think is what's rated with LA. It seems you're more talking about the combined statistical area which is those other counties you named
Lets try and keep it real here. The western US stereotype that the east coast is full of bombed out ghettoes^^ is absolutely ridiculous.
The Eastern US stereotype is that the West is full of undeveloped land with dangerous wild animals and extreme weather and climates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamiman
Planning is a different matter. The West notoriously has poor public transportation in many of its cities. I agree that the way that cities have grown out here discourages decent public transportation. However, that doesn't negate the fact the people are still moving here from all over the country in droves, and that there are many transportation projects that have been established, or are in the making, to increase the attractiveness and viability of public transit out here.
I thought Los Angeles would have the best public transportation in the West and amongst the best in North America due to the high population. I can understand Las Vegas and its crappy overpriced monorail, but there is no justification that Los Angeles, where people actually live and work to make the money to gamble during the weekend in Las Vegas, should have poor public transportation.
I found it Very odd how Jersey and PA are included in NYC Metro,but Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario is not included with L.A Metro ???
L.A's Metro is not 13 Million,but rather close to 18 Million.
Like i've said in my previous post....Metro L.A is composed of 5 Counties,but yet on this list they are dividing Metro L.A in half,and I don't even see Ventura County on that list,which is also a part of Metro L.A.
Here's proof that Metro L.A is the Fastest Growing.
Numerical Growth from April 1, 2000-July 1, 2006 (Ventura Excluded)
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, Calif. 771,314 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, Calif. 584,510
Total Numerical Growth For Metro L.A from 2000-2006 (1,355,824)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caliguy2007
Official doesn't always necessarily mean Accurate.
I've seen other lists that continously change the definition of Metro L.A,especially when it comes to lowering L.A's Ranking.
NY will send their money into Washington to keep it this way. This has all been argued before. NY will include all of these small counties in Pennsylvania and New Jersey as well as Connecticut! With NY's money and Washington's help, they can draw the lines to include whoever they want. It's all a competition to them. Now, L. A. can have San Bernardino and Riverside counties. Huge in area, but all the populated areas are L. A. metropolitan suburbs. But, if you include Orange county, which is actually like including your leg, well, that's too close for comfort. Poor little NY, doesn't want to appear less than they think they are. Get ready for the CMSA crowd. "Oooh, but the counties on the east coast are small in area, therefore, we must count them all." Doesn't explain how you go into the Newark metropolitan area and slap your name on them. Or Stamford metropolitan. And trying to decide if Philly suburbs have a stronger allegience toward NY or not! That's the one that let's you know money is changing hands. You'll be called an Oliver Stone conspiracy theorist. It's just so overt. L. A. metropolitan is bigger in area and has a larger population and doesn't have to trespass into other backyards to be that way. Think San Diego interacts with Los Angeles enough, maybe they should be included. We're not crossing any state lines, just going down the coast. Then, they can have their 'BosWash' and we can have our San Angeles! Silly.
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.