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.
I think a good portion of Nashville's metro growth has been through annexing more counties to its metropolitan area.
Metro areas do not annex counties; counties are added to a metro area when the commuting patterns, based on the threshold set by the OMB, justify it.
Quote:
You may want to consider updating Nashville's wikipedia page. It's showing 1.757 million for metro and 1.876 million for the CSA. So no, my stats aren't off. You're just using a different set of estimates.
He's using the current estimates; Wikipedia pages can be outdated in many cases. However, the page that lists all U.S. MSAs tends to be updated pretty frequently and it has the current estimates for all MSAs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tistical_Areas
So Nashville is only a fraction smaller than Indianapolis but over $24 billion less in GDP output. Thanks for contributing your part.
At this point in time, yes, you are correct. But the assumption of this thread is that Indianapolis is "outperforming" all of its peer cities (which you selectively chose). By some metrics (like total output), you are correct. But could you honestly say that Indianapolis has "outperformed" Nashville in the past 4 years when Nashville has both a higher raw GDP growth and considerably higher percentage growth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdAilment
I think a good portion of Nashville's metro growth has been through annexing more counties to its metropolitan area. 7,484 square miles for Nashville MSA vs 5,940 square miles for Indianapolis MSA. Not as impressive when you compare how much larger in land Nashville is.
Ah, the old land area argument. A great crutch for people that are too lazy to look deeper into things. 5 rural counties on the fringes of the metro area account for over 1,600 square miles and just 88,000 people. Speaking of crutches, using Wikipedia as a source can lead to some embarrassing moments. Neither of the square mileage numbers you quoted for the MSAs are correct. And they're not close, either.
As for growth by "annexing counties" (LOL), what, in your opinion, is a "good portion"?
Going back to the 1990 definitions of each metro area, Nashville has added 6 counties totalling 173,670 people (in current population). Indianapolis, meanwhile, has only added 3 counties, but those counties total 182,649 people (again, current population).
Total growth 1990-2014: All current counties included in 1990
Indianapolis +546,388
Nashville +689,621
Counties added since 1990 not included
Indianapolis +538,803
Nashville +633,953
Current 2014 definition compared to 1990 definition
Indianapolis +721,452
Nashville +807,623
I don't think the counties added does anything significant (other than add a lot of land area) for either metro. Indianapolis added more in overall numbers, while Nashville added more as a percentage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdAilment
You may want to consider updating Nashville's wikipedia page. It's showing 1.757 million for metro and 1.876 million for the CSA. So no, my stats aren't off. You're just using a different set of estimates.
"My stats weren't wrong."
Well....neither were the stats of the poster that you corrected. Maybe use, I don't know, the Census page for updated stats?
At this point in time, yes, you are correct. But the assumption of this thread is that Indianapolis is "outperforming" all of its peer cities (which you selectively chose). By some metrics (like total output), you are correct. But could you honestly say that Indianapolis has "outperformed" Nashville in the past 4 years when Nashville has both a higher raw GDP growth and considerably higher percentage growth?
Ah, the old land area argument. A great crutch for people that are too lazy to look deeper into things. 5 rural counties on the fringes of the metro area account for over 1,600 square miles and just 88,000 people. Speaking of crutches, using Wikipedia as a source can lead to some embarrassing moments. Neither of the square mileage numbers you quoted for the MSAs are correct. And they're not close, either.
As for growth by "annexing counties" (LOL), what, in your opinion, is a "good portion"?
Going back to the 1990 definitions of each metro area, Nashville has added 6 counties totalling 173,670 people (in current population). Indianapolis, meanwhile, has only added 3 counties, but those counties total 182,649 people (again, current population).
Total growth 1990-2014: All current counties included in 1990
Indianapolis +546,388
Nashville +689,621
Counties added since 1990 not included
Indianapolis +538,803
Nashville +633,953
Current 2014 definition compared to 1990 definition
Indianapolis +721,452
Nashville +807,623
I don't think the counties added does anything significant (other than add a lot of land area) for either metro. Indianapolis added more in overall numbers, while Nashville added more as a percentage.
"My stats weren't wrong."
Well....neither were the stats of the poster that you corrected. Maybe use, I don't know, the Census page for updated stats?
2012-2013 Indy grew by $6 billion
2012-2013 Nashville grew by $3 billion
I guess it did grow faster overall, except in the last year Indianapolis grew twice as fast, you were saying?
Throughout this entire thread you cherry pick the stats that support your statement and completely ignore anything that doesn't.
And when I call you out on the MSA growth numbers, no response.
MSA growth has nothing to do with this thread. I didn't compare cities like Milwaukee and Nashville because they are smaller and their GDP is considerably smaller than Indy's.
For the last 10+ pages I've been comparing Indianapolis to LARGER cities that also have a smaller GDP than Indy, which equals out to exactly 9 cities. Nashville punches considerably below its weight in GDP relative to MSA.
At this point in time, yes, you are correct. But the assumption of this thread is that Indianapolis is "outperforming" all of its peer cities (which you selectively chose). By some metrics (like total output), you are correct. But could you honestly say that Indianapolis has "outperformed" Nashville in the past 4 years when Nashville has both a higher raw GDP growth and considerably higher percentage growth?
Ah, the old land area argument. A great crutch for people that are too lazy to look deeper into things. 5 rural counties on the fringes of the metro area account for over 1,600 square miles and just 88,000 people. Speaking of crutches, using Wikipedia as a source can lead to some embarrassing moments. Neither of the square mileage numbers you quoted for the MSAs are correct. And they're not close, either.
As for growth by "annexing counties" (LOL), what, in your opinion, is a "good portion"?
Going back to the 1990 definitions of each metro area, Nashville has added 6 counties totalling 173,670 people (in current population). Indianapolis, meanwhile, has only added 3 counties, but those counties total 182,649 people (again, current population).
Total growth 1990-2014: All current counties included in 1990
Indianapolis +546,388
Nashville +689,621
Counties added since 1990 not included
Indianapolis +538,803
Nashville +633,953
Current 2014 definition compared to 1990 definition
Indianapolis +721,452
Nashville +807,623
I don't think the counties added does anything significant (other than add a lot of land area) for either metro. Indianapolis added more in overall numbers, while Nashville added more as a percentage.
"My stats weren't wrong."
Well....neither were the stats of the poster that you corrected. Maybe use, I don't know, the Census page for updated stats?
Indy is larger than say Nash and Milwaukee so its GDP is supposed to be higher. The point of this thread at least IMO were larger metros with smaller GDP which should not happen. So in that case is Indy over performing or are these other areas under performing or a combination. No one is coming after Nashville in any way.
Your ref to counties being added not having an effect in this case is wrong to a degree. Why brown and Putnam counties are part of Indy msa is due to Madison asking omb to remove it years ago. Now omb has added Madison, which is a direct suburb of Indy back to the Indy msa, brown and Putnam should be let go because they commute to Bloomington way more than Indy by a long shot, esp brown county. So that 110k clip to your total is literally adding back a direct suburb (Madison is a donut county) back to its core city instead of standalone. So out of the 187k figure, 110 of that is Madison county (Anderson).
I thought Bea used census pop with GDP and not projected which would put Indy GDP based off of 1.83 mil instead of 1.9+. That also drops Nash and cbus well all of them leaving kc, cle, con all still over 2m census pop with C-D punching bag Indianapolis still out performing them. Keep in mind, its been outperforming cincy since 3rd qtr 2007 and only increased that margin. Been outperforming cbus longer than that but just caught kc and cle. The GDP range from mil on low end to cbus on high end is technically where Indy should be. That includes Nash and Austin in that mix. Op asked basically why isn't it, as it is higher than those it should not be like Tampa for example with nearly a million person difference.
No one is saying Indy and Nash aren't peer cities. They are actually very similar with govt. Indy is more corporate while nash is more consumer but still both are similar.
I'm trying to figure out if you are intentionally being obtuse or if this is you in your natural state.
When you've got no ammunition left for your argument, punt. Seems to be your line of thinking.
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.
