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.
Denver annexed 53 square miles of unpopulated land in 1989 when building Denver International Airport (DIA). This land's population currently is roughly 8,500 people (keep in mind this is within 53 sq. mi.) and is virtually desolate, no-mans land today. Take away 53 square miles of annexation from Denver and it doesn't make the 1st list.
So, although these lists makes for interesting debate, it has to be taken with a grain of salt. The Denver example shows that correlating the two figures from both lists is in no way representative to how the city grew in population over that 60 year period. More figures, such as how much population the annexed land had prior to annexation, need to be supplied before you can properly make comparisons. Denver shows that huge swaths of land can be annexed onto a city proper without adding any significant population.
Denver is indeed a city that has had generous population gains through migration rather than annexation and I'm sure that it isn't the only city on these lists that has.
Exactly! In 1974, the people of Colorado approved an amendment to the Colorado constitution that made it very difficult for Denver to annex any more land. The annexation of the 53 acres for DIA was the only large annexation since then. That increased the city's area by 50%.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 07-18-2012 at 10:01 PM..
Stop the attack on the Sun Belt. Believe it or not, there was a time when New York annexed land to bring into the city. Brooklyn was a completely separate city as recently as 1898. Without Brooklyn, New York would have 2.5 million fewer people than it has now. Most every city annexes land. Sun Belt cities have just tended to annex more land. The fact of the matter is the LA is still the 2nd most populous city in the US, Houston is 4th, Phoenix is 6th, San Antonio 7th, San Diego 8th, Dallas 9th, and San Jose 10th. The growth rate for these cities, which really haven't annexed that much land recently, is still significantly higher than any most any city in the Northeastern and Rust Belt corridors.
Stop the attack on the Sun Belt. Believe it or not, there was a time when New York annexed land to bring into the city. Brooklyn was a completely separate city as recently as 1898. Without Brooklyn, New York would have 2.5 million fewer people than it has now. Most every city annexes land. Sun Belt cities have just tended to annex more land. The fact of the matter is the LA is still the 2nd most populous city in the US, Houston is 4th, Phoenix is 6th, San Antonio 7th, San Diego 8th, Dallas 9th, and San Jose 10th. The growth rate for these cities, which really haven't annexed that much land recently, is still significantly higher than any most any city in the Northeastern and Rust Belt corridors.
That's not the point.
The point is that everyone is saying the sunbelt is booming when it could of just been annexation that made it seem that way.
On the point about Phoenix, stop looking at square miles to mean the same thing. Square miles are calculated simply multiplying the width and height of a city. Square miles doesn't mean cities with similar sizes cover the same area in the same way. Phoenix has 500 square miles because its a very long city, but very narrow. Houston is 634 square miles because its both wide and long.
It was a typo.
Phoenix at its narrowest point is still about 75 blocks wide. Yes, the city is MUCH longer than it is wide, but to say that Phoenix is a very narrow city just isn't true. Atlanta is narrow. Phoenix, not so much.
That's not the point.
The point is that everyone is saying the sunbelt is booming when it could of just been annexation that made it seem that way.
We're not talking about the 1900s/1800s
I just stated that the majority of Sun Belt cities have not really annexed much land recently, but the growth rates still greatly exceed the rates of Northeastern and Midwestern cities.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,486 posts, read 15,008,050 times
Reputation: 7334
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamiman
Phoenix at its narrowest point is still about 75 blocks wide. Yes, the city is MUCH longer than it is wide, but to say that Phoenix is a very narrow city just isn't true. Atlanta is narrow. Phoenix, not so much.
Well, "narrow" in relation to it's North-South boundaries. To be sure though, Phoenix is a big honkin' city land wise.
That's not the point.
The point is that everyone is saying the sunbelt is booming when it could of just been annexation that made it seem that way.
We're not talking about the 1900s/1800s
If you read the whole thread, there has been a myriad of evidence to prove that annexations are not the reason these cities have grown. For the most part, these cities have annexed the land as it developed or even prior to its developing. Someone made a comparison of county populations, those lines don't change. The small sampling proved the sunbelt's growth. Here's some more if that wasn't enough:
So one can make the claim that annexations were the cause of some of the growth in sunbelt cities. I am sure some cities on the top ten list wouldn't be there if they didn't annex to their current size and the growth in their metro areas were counted in suburbs or unincorporated county figures. But these county lines have not changed. These kind of figures could be replicated in south and central Florida, in Charlotte, Raleiigh Durham, Nashville, Dallas, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, Phoenix, and in other mountain and Pacific coast cities.... the sun belt. Show me ANY city in the rest of the country, when broken down to county units like this (that don't arbitrarily change in land mass) that has had this kind of growth in the same time period.
That's not the point.
The point is that everyone is saying the sunbelt is booming when it could of just been annexation that made it seem that way.
We're not talking about the 1900s/1800s
The Sunbelt cities annexed land that was developed fairly recently--due to people migrating to the region in the last 50 years. One lead to the other. Without people having been attracted to and moving to the region recently alot of those cities would've just been annexing empty farmland or rural desert communities.
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.
