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.
Also, a lot of cities gain population but annexing the surrounding communities/suburbs. So it's not so much growth as it is moving boarders. Another reason metros give a clearer picture.
It's good to hear that Newark actually saw a population increase. OTOH, I'm surprised that St. Pete and Fort Lauderdale has actually declined in population.
Two factors at play here:
1. Neither city has changed its limits
2. Both cities have a large number of second homeowners who don't get counted in resident numbers. This is why coastal Florida cities can have a construction boom without appreciably increasing their populations. As Florida waterfront property becomes more expensive, it pushes out residents and replaces them with more second homeowners.
Also, a lot of cities gain population but annexing the surrounding communities/suburbs. So it's not so much growth as it is moving boarders. Another reason metros give a clearer picture.
I hear this argument all the time but it's not borne out as the truth very often. In the cases where cities and counties all but consolidated (Louisville, Nashville, Jacksonville, etc.), this spiked their growth during that particular year/decade but most cities that are growing rapidly are not just swallowing up already developed land and population. It's more of the case that land is being annexed so that new/proposed development can connect to city services and pack more housing on their parcels.
In the cases of cities where they are not part of a county, there is a disconnect to counting growth at the municipal level. For instance, what happens in Richmond is not a reflection of what's happening in the metro on the whole except to gauge whether or not the metro is growing at the city's expense. This used to be the case but isn't any longer.
In the case of the majority of fast growing municipalities, they are usually both expanding in land and expanding in population simultaneously. In some cases they are expanding their land faster than their population and in others they are expanding their population faster than their land. It used to be that most expanded land faster but now that tide has changed and most core cities are expanding population faster. The same isn't necessarily true for the suburbs.
I hear this argument all the time but it's not borne out as the truth very often. In the cases where cities and counties all but consolidated (Louisville, Nashville, Jacksonville, etc.), this spiked their growth during that particular year/decade but most cities that are growing rapidly are not just swallowing up already developed land and population. It's more of the case that land is being annexed so that new/proposed development can connect to city services and pack more housing on their parcels.
In the cases of cities where they are not part of a county, there is a disconnect to counting growth at the municipal level. For instance, what happens in Richmond is not a reflection of what's happening in the metro on the whole except to gauge whether or not the metro is growing at the city's expense. This used to be the case but isn't any longer.
In the case of the majority of fast growing municipalities, they are usually both expanding in land and expanding in population simultaneously. In some cases they are expanding their land faster than their population and in others they are expanding their population faster than their land. It used to be that most expanded land faster but now that tide has changed and most core cities are expanding population faster. The same isn't necessarily true for the suburbs.
I think even with this, there are areas where all towns are incorporated versus areas with unincorporated areas. So, in turn, it makes annexing easier for those cities, as those areas in some metros would be built up or growing suburbs due to early incorporation.
Do city proper numbers even matter anymore? Most of the country's largest cities are massive in size and resemble suburbs more than they do true, urban cities.
What? There aren't even 1000 cities in the US... After reading this sub-forum, I'm pretty sure there are only like 8 or 9 cities tops in the US.
There's only one city in the world and it's called AMERICA!
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.
