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.
The CSA growth comparison of these two metros this decade through 2015 is an interesting comparison and shows just how important the two are to the state. In both of these cases, the largest core county is contributing more than 55% of the total growth.
Charlotte-Concord: 5926 m2, +208,040, +1.61% per year since 2010, + 35.11 people/m2
Raleigh-Durham-CH: 5510 m2, +204,486, +1.95% per year since 2010, + 37.11 people/m2
I would have loved to have read this reply if Charlotte had made the list and Raleigh didn't.
I think he would've seriously questioned Charlotte being on that list as he did Houston. Glad Raleigh made the list but honestly it had to be a huge stretch to figure out a way to include it based on that list. Maybe it was in good gesture but most people aren't selecting destination travel based on foodie cities...excellent eats are usually a by-product or complement of the culture of most touristy areas like the ones provided on that high level list.
The Triangle Area is absolutely on par in numerical growth sweetie.
If Raleigh (alone) stretched out to almost 300 sq miles, this would be a different discussion all together.
Annexing half the state helps it seems lol.
And if Meck stretched out by an extra 306 sq/miles, Meck would have 1.5 million-plus residents. Charlotte's urbanized area (estimated to be 1.5 million as of 2015) could fit inside of Wake county. And that urbanized area was the fastest growing UA in the Nation last decade. Austin followed as the second fastest growing 1 million-plus urbanized area in the Nation. These are all FACTS that anyone can research.
Couple this with the fact that Uptown/Southend is the fastest growing rental submarket in the Nation, and you get a clear picture of what's happening in Charlotte. Heck, uptown will soon break ground on the city's 40th and 41st tower above 250 ft tall. To compare, Raleigh has 9 buildings above 250 ft tall. Does that make Charlotte a "better" city? No! However, it does mean that Charlotte is growing in a very different way right now; a way that justifies expanding mass transit in a hub/spoke fashion. A way that justifies people living 30 floors up.
On the other hand, Raleigh enjoys less crime, more modest numerical growth, great higher education, and a more laid back feel. It's what Raleigh is and that's perfectly fine.
And if Meck stretched out by an extra 306 sq/miles, Meck would have 1.5 million-plus residents. Charlotte's urbanized area (estimated to be 1.5 million as of 2015) could fit inside of Wake county. And that urbanized area was the fastest growing UA in the Nation last decade. Austin followed as the second fastest growing 1 million-plus urbanized area in the Nation. These are all FACTS that anyone can research.
Couple this with the fact that Uptown/Southend is the fastest growing rental submarket in the Nation, and you get a clear picture of what's happening in Charlotte. Heck, uptown will soon break ground on the city's 40th and 41st tower above 250 ft tall. To compare, Raleigh has 9 buildings above 250 ft tall. Does that make Charlotte a "better" city? No! However, it does mean that Charlotte is growing in a very different way right now; a way that justifies expanding mass transit in a hub/spoke fashion. A way that justifies people living 30 floors up.
On the other hand, Raleigh enjoys less crime, more modest numerical growth, great higher education, and a more laid back feel. It's what Raleigh is and that's perfectly fine.
Bye
Like I said, if Raleigh annexed (lol) most of the Triangle Area, this discussion would be totally different.
The thing is, Raleigh doesn't care to even try to do that.
Unlike Charlotte, Raleigh is perfectly content with its size and NATURAL growth.
That's why we're constantly on the "best" lists by major publications...we're authentic.
Charlotte is a Atlanta wanna be, and is failing horribly at it lol.
Charlotte's land area is more than twice the size of Raleigh's. It should be growing much faster than it is.
Very unimpressive...
I think that it's unfair to call Charlotte's growth unimpressive but I do think that its growth needs to be considered in context of its size and not overstated. This is especially true when growth numbers are tangentially tied to the presumption of urban development as the driver. The truly impressive cities in regard to their municipal population growth and urban development are San Francisco, Seattle, Washington and Miami. These cities are adding lots of people in small footprints.
The reality is that suburban growth still remains the primary driver of growth for greater Charlotte and the greater Triangle. Certainly both metros are growing in their cores. Certainly both metros are "urbanizing" some of their close-in & aging suburban areas.
The comparison of greater Charlotte and the greater Triangle have so many incongruent comparisons: singular vs split MSA & UA models, physical city sizes, physical core county sizes, one core vs two core, etc. It's because of these differences that I elevate both metros to the CSA to get real comparable numbers that seem to make sense when talking about comparing them on things that are actually comparable. I posted specifics on this in an earlier reply to this thread today.
In that comparison, it's easy to quantify what many of know and what others might not including:
Charlotte's metro has more people
Charlotte's metro is physically larger
The Triangle's metro is growing at a faster rate
Both metros are projected to be growing by similar absolute numbers (Charlotte very slightly higher)
Both metros are adding nearly the same number of people per square mile over time (Triangle very slightly higher)
And if Meck stretched out by an extra 306 sq/miles, Meck would have 1.5 million-plus residents. Charlotte's urbanized area (estimated to be 1.5 million as of 2015) could fit inside of Wake county. And that urbanized area was the fastest growing UA in the Nation last decade. Austin followed as the second fastest growing 1 million-plus urbanized area in the Nation. These are all FACTS that anyone can research.
A lot of Wake County is still rural and/or in a development-limiting watershed. You know this.
That said, Wake will overtake Mecklenburg soon, mainly because of land area and there is an argument to be made about that contributing factor. However, Wake's larger size isn't THE contributing factor to its rapid growth since most of that growth is in the central-west part of the county.
I think that it's unfair to call Charlotte's growth unimpressive but I do think that its growth needs to be considered in context of its size and not overstated. This is especially true when growth numbers are tangentially tied to the presumption of urban development as the driver. The truly impressive cities in regard to their municipal population growth and urban development are San Francisco, Seattle, Washington and Miami. These cities are adding lots of people in small footprints.
The reality is that suburban growth still remains the primary driver of growth for greater Charlotte and the greater Triangle. Certainly both metros are growing in their cores. Certainly both metros are "urbanizing" some of their close-in & aging suburban areas.
My dude, PLEASE take a visit to central Charlotte. Seriously. What's happening in Charlotte's core is on a level that Raleigh simply doesn't have.
In almost every major city, the suburbs are the growth leaders. However, in the link above, Charlotte's core is the fastest growing submarket in the Nation (not just in NC, IN THE NATION). At one point, Indian Trail was metro Charlotte's fastest growing submarket. Things have changed and I think your perception of Charlotte's growth is dated. Either read the data or visit. Maybe then you wouldn't post language that suggests Charlotte's core development is on par with Raleigh's. It's not. If they were on par with each other we'd see central Raleigh on that top 10 list. Keep in mind that fast growing Cary didn't even have a submarket on that list. So YES uptown/southend are evolving THAT fast.
I think that it's unfair to call Charlotte's growth unimpressive but I do think that its growth needs to be considered in context of its size and not overstated. This is especially true when growth numbers are tangentially tied to the presumption of urban development as the driver. The truly impressive cities in regard to their municipal population growth and urban development are San Francisco, Seattle, Washington and Miami. These cities are adding lots of people in small footprints.
The reality is that suburban growth still remains the primary driver of growth for greater Charlotte and the greater Triangle. Certainly both metros are growing in their cores. Certainly both metros are "urbanizing" some of their close-in & aging suburban areas.
The comparison of greater Charlotte and the greater Triangle have so many incongruent comparisons: singular vs split MSA & UA models, physical city sizes, physical core county sizes, one core vs two core, etc. It's because of these differences that I elevate both metros to the CSA to get real comparable numbers that seem to make sense when talking about comparing them on things that are actually comparable. I posted specifics on this in an earlier reply to this thread today.
In that comparison, it's easy to quantify what many of know and what others might not including:
Charlotte's metro has more people
Charlotte's metro is physically larger
The Triangle's metro is growing at a faster rate
Both metros are projected to be growing by similar absolute numbers (Charlotte very slightly higher)
Both metros are adding nearly the same number of people per square mile over time (Triangle very slightly higher)
I absolutely agree with everything stated, but the Charlotte Crew doesn't like a CSA vs CSA comparison as much as a city proper vs city proper ( which is disingenuous) comparison.
Raleigh is surrounded by fast growing, quite large cities/suburbs. Some of which are physically connected to its borders.
Charlotte has nothing of the sort attached to, or near its borders.
Not a fair comparison.
You're correct though.
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.
