Quote:
Originally Posted by rnc2mbfl
As for metro growth for 2016-2017, or for any time period, may I remind you that Raleigh is working with a much smaller land area, 44% of the Columbus' land area, and nearly 3/4 million less people as its baseline. So, bravo Columbus metro, you added 1565 more people in one year's estimate after those gigantic metric advantages/head start.
Growth is a function of rate. If it weren't, Austin wouldn't be leading the nation in growth because it's not adding the most people. Heck, it isn't even adding the most people among Texas' metros. Houston and DFW are blowing it away, as are Los Angeles, Miami, Phoenix, and others.
As for CSAs, I can imagine that you don't like them since Columbus' CSA actually grew by less people than its MSA since the last Census. Are there any other situations like this in the entire country?
I am always amused by people who want to compare their performance against Raleigh's metro while ignoring that Raleigh's immediately adjacent sister city and metro even exists. It's like Raleigh exists in a vacuum, despite the fact it shares a municipal border with Durham, shares an airport that bears both its names, and shares an economic engine in RTP that straddles both MSAs and connects the three major universities that give it its name.
So, if Columbus is comparable to Raleigh as you suggest, is Raleigh outperforming or is Columbus underperforming? ...because, it's certainly not a comparison based on apples to apples.
|
You're suggesting that land area is what attracts people? I bet you didn't know that about 73% of Columbus' total metro growth occurs within its core county, and about 52% of the entire metro's growth occurs in the core city, both numbers being some of the highest of any of the top 50 largest metros. So you can say that the greater land area is what accounts for it, but it's not. If Columbus was whittled down to its 3-4 largest counties- or about the size of Raleigh's metro- its growth would actually change very little. They would still be comparable. For example, if I included the 3 largest counties in the Columbus metro- Franklin, Delaware and Licking- they would alone account for 91.5% of the metro's growth. If I included the 4th largest, Fairfield, that would jump to 96.4% of the metro's growth.
Growth by percentage is simply not as important as totals. 1+1=2 is 100% growth. So is 100,000+100,000, etc. The percentage growth is the same, but to say that the place that added 1 person is growing the same as the place that added 100,000 is ridiculous and intellectually dishonest. So you'd be right in that all those other cities are growing faster, regardless of what the % says.
Again, I just don't care about CSA. It's used by people trying to inflate the importance of their region when MSA or city limit is not big enough for these endless internet debates. Too many of them include areas that are crazy distances from their core cities and I've never been a fan. What the CSA population shows is not even remotely something I look at. Look up my history posting about population stats and see just how many times I've used them, and how often I've said this exact thing. I've been consistent on this for YEARS.
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.
