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.
Your method is flawed....you are using municipal city populations instead of metro populations. Cities that are landlocked like Minneapolis and Chicago can't grow nearly as fast, but their metros can. MSP grew about 16% from 1990-2000, and my guess is that it grew 12%-14% from 2000-2010. But what's the point of guessing -- we'll just wait for the Census results. Columbus, Indy, KC, etc. did not grow much faster than that metro wide.
I DO NOT understand why folks who live in cities with larger municipal populations ONLY refer to the municipal population when comparing cities, instead of the metro population. If you want to go that route, then Minneapolis city is HALF the population of Columbus, yet it has twice the downtown amenities.......so does that make it 4 times better? It doesn't work that way!
Wait, so if we can't compare municipal city populations because of a difference in size, how does it make sense to do that for MSAs when they are all different sizes as well?
Wait, so if we can't compare municipal city populations because of a difference in size, how does it make sense to do that for MSAs when they are all different sizes as well?
Because the size of a particular MSA isn't tied to the central city's population.
The best way to analyze growth is to measure the entire region, not just one or two core cities.
Because the size of a particular MSA isn't tied to the central city's population.
The best way to analyze growth is to measure the entire region, not just one or two core cities.
Exactly. Look at Des Moines, IA. The city core grew by 5,000 people or 2%, but the metro grew by 86,000 at 18%. You have to look at the big picture when dealing with cities that have no land to grow.
Because the size of a particular MSA isn't tied to the central city's population.
The best way to analyze growth is to measure the entire region, not just one or two core cities.
I don't think I would agree. After all, an MSA can be growing, yet a central city's population could be falling, and vice versa. The census just showed downtown Chicago losing 200K people, but showed the suburbs gaining people. I don't necessarily see the MSA in that situation as the best overall picture because it would only show growth. Without the central city, there is no MSA to begin with. If anything, both the MSA and the central city and their respective populations together give the best measure. I just gave city proper populations, you want to use just the MSA. Here are the MSAs for the same cities mentioned above.
2000-2010 MSA Actual Growth Rate
Indianapolis: +19.8%
So based on estimates only (which have been very much off when actual numbers are released), the cities of Columbus, Kansas City and Indianapolis are all growing faster than MSP, no matter if you use city proper or MSA. But again, these are going to vary quite a bit when actual numbers come out. Indy's growth is one of the few examples so far where estimates were way too low. It could really go either way for the rest of them.
I don't think I would agree. After all, an MSA can be growing, yet a central city's population could be falling, and vice versa. The census just showed downtown Chicago losing 200K people, but showed the suburbs gaining people. I don't necessarily see the MSA in that situation as the best overall picture because it would only show growth. Without the central city, there is no MSA to begin with. If anything, both the MSA and the central city and their respective populations together give the best measure. I just gave city proper populations, you want to use just the MSA. Here are the MSAs for the same cities mentioned above.
2000-2010 MSA Actual Growth Rate
Indianapolis: +19.8%
So based on estimates only (which have been very much off when actual numbers are released), the cities of Columbus, Kansas City and Indianapolis are all growing faster than MSP, no matter if you use city proper or MSA. But again, these are going to vary quite a bit when actual numbers come out. Indy's growth is one of the few examples so far where estimates were way too low. It could really go either way for the rest of them.
I understand your argument. I guess I could have said, "because the size of a particular MSA isn't necessarily tied to the central city's population."
Still, the Twin cities are peculiar because Minneapolis and St. Paul are so small, both population and area wise, compared to the rest of the metro.
Here's to hoping that Minneapolis has grown more than 1% in the last 10 years
What, you mean to tell me that there are other cities in the Midwest besides Chicago and St Louis?
Oh, it's all flyover country. Does it really matter?
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.
