Winston-Salem may annex land by June

[intcvlcphlga]

Winston-Salem is projected under annexation to make a big move up the list of top 100 U.S. cities with the largest populations, displacing Durham along the way as the fourth-largest city in North Carolina.

A new estimate done by officials with the City-County Planning Department shows that the population of Winston-Salem will increase to 227,727 come Sept. 30, when the city officially extends its boundaries around 20 square miles in Forsyth County and 20,727 people through annexation.

A previous estimate released three years ago suggested a population increase of about 17,000, but according to the latest city-county census, Winston-Salem could climb from its national population ranking of 110th to 77th, officials said Friday.

After annexation, planning officials estimate that Winston-Salem will be close in size to such cities as Baton Rouge, La., Hialeah, Fla., Jersey City, N.J., Madison, Wis., and Greensboro.

In North Carolina, Winston-Salem's size would be slightly less than Greensboro's 231,543, the number listed in a 2004 U.S. Census estimate. But an expanded Winston-Sa-lem would take Durham's spot as the fourth-largest city in the state.

http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellit...d=1149190246070

Since those numbers are coming from the City-County Planning Office, it seems legit to me. So, does that settle it - W-S will only be slightly smaller, population-wise, than GSO? Is that some kind of affront to Greensboro's image of itself?

[Noneck_08]

^ I doubt that. Althought Winston is very close to topping Greensboro....the city is way sprawled out and the infrastructure is lacking IMO. Winston is second to Charlotte in land area....Raleigh, a city of 350,000 along with G-boro are denser. Alot of these annexed areas are rural so this will just help the city control more sprawl. Greensboro also has a better highway system to me. But don't worry, Greensboro is diffently going to annex sometime soon. They can't have Winston that close.

[twincity]

Hmmm well...according to the state's website Greensboro's land area is slightly larger than W-S as of today. furthermore, currently Raleigh is 2nd to Charlotte in land area... not W-S.

CLT - 268.931

RAL - 128.484

GSO - 114.625

W-S - 109.659

DUR - 101.634

on Sept 30, Raleigh and W-S will be about the same size,but still, 2nd 3rd and 4th will be roughly the same land area. then, either Raleigh or W-S will be in 2nd...a DISTANT 2nd.

[nowensone]

Hmmm well...according to the state's website Greensboro's land area is slightly larger than W-S as of today. furthermore, currently Raleigh is 2nd to Charlotte in land area... not W-S.

CLT - 268.931

RAL - 128.484

GSO - 114.625

W-S - 109.659

DUR - 101.634

on Sept 30, Raleigh and W-S will be about the same size,but still, 2nd 3rd and 4th will be roughly the same land area. then, either Raleigh or W-S will be in 2nd...a DISTANT 2nd.

Hmmm... numbers seem to vary everywhere, which makes these posted even odder. If they are State numbers they should be accurate, however they seem to on the one hand account for obvious annexation by Raleigh to take it from 114 sq. miles to 128, but not account for Charlotte's roughly 280 currently. Anyway, the interesting thing to note is that even by the above numbers Raleigh is more dense than Charlotte (assuming it's current pop of over 350K compared to Charlotte's 650K). Can anyone actually on the respective planning departments verify the numbers?

[Forsyth]

sprawl. Greensboro also has a better highway system to me.

[blburton]

Density is pretty much a joke when you look at the some of the newer top 20 to 30 most populated cities in the US. With city-county consolidations in addition to annexations of sprawl or to conduce sprawl, it's pretty easy for a city with 300-400 sq. miles of area to have a large population. I mean... Baltimore City has a land area of 92 sq. mi., however, Baltimore also has the same population as a city with nearly 3 times more land area: CHARLOTTE.

Population, numbers, etc.... they all fluctuate depending on the source. Scrutinizing subtle differences in land area is pretty trivial IMO. Generally, I see that W-S and Gboro are comparable in density (we can argue needlessly about which city is more urban - they both have their arguments). Raleigh is more dense than the Triad cities, yet quite sprawly. Charlotte is just plain big and sprawly.

So to redirect focus back on the post.... other than a population and land area boost.... how will this affect W-S if at all? It was interesting for me to see the map and notice that annexation took place all around the city instead of largely in one region.

Sorry if I offended anyone!!

Hmmm... numbers seem to vary everywhere, which makes these posted even odder. If they are State numbers they should be accurate, however they seem to on the one hand account for obvious annexation by Raleigh to take it from 114 sq. miles to 128, but not account for Charlotte's roughly 280 currently. Anyway, the interesting thing to note is that even by the above numbers Raleigh is more dense than Charlotte (assuming it's current pop of over 350K compared to Charlotte's 650K). Can anyone actually on the respective planning departments verify the numbers?

[nowensone]

^Agreed, and while it's great to say Charlotte will go to 17th on the US cities list, it is not a meaningful measurement of much. But seriously, there, erm, should be a consensus on physical area...

And I've seen it posted elsewhere, WS and GSO both have significant vacant office space DT, that should indicate the real lack that annexation isn't going to do anything about.

[DCMetroRaleigh]

While density may be the best indicator of urbanity, the total number people living within a city is not meaningless, even if a city has expanded to take in a geographically large area. Still, a city of 700,000 with 700 square miles has more people within its corporate boundaries than a city of 500,000 that is 70 square feet and that means something in itself. Urbanity is its own issue. Metropolitan area population is another issue. The number of people within a city's corporate boundaries has some meaning that may go beyond the issue of how how densely urban a city is. It reflects how many people literally have a residence inside a city, pay city taxes, have an official city address and use a city's services. The fact remains that raw population has significance.

[RaleighRob]

That is amazing... I didn't realize that W-S (and Greensboro) were that spread out. What I think is more interesting is that even though Raleigh will have less land area than both of the big Triad cities, the city will have a population well over 100,000 more... 203K (W-S) vs. 235K (G) vs. 353K

[blburton]

"Urbanity" was not the purpose of my post and I do know what population means for cities. I felt that the purpose of the post was thrown out the window and had been turned into a "which city is better" match by frantically digging for numbers to argue who was geographically larger or more dense. Those numbers could change tomorrow with a 4000 home development, so it's needless to look a single current point in time and rank your density (or lack thereof).

I, being originally from the eastern Triad, have my opinions about W-S having visited a few times and shopped there and was wondering if the areas annexed would have any impact than just a population and area boost? It seems like quite a few UPers are from W-S or at least knew more than I do about the city. What are the reprecussions of the annexation? More residential/retail/sprawl? More fill in between suburbs and the city limits? Does it include the Dell plant? Based on the map, it looks like this annexation filled in gaps around the city's periphery as opposed to one large area in one section of the county.

Thoughts?

While density may be the best indicator of urbanity, the total number people living within a city is not meaningless, even if a city has expanded to take in a geographically large area. Still, a city of 700,000 with 700 square miles has more people within its corporate boundaries than a city of 500,000 that is 70 square feet and that means something in itself. Urbanity is its own issue. Metropolitan area population is another issue. The number of people within a city's corporate boundaries has some meaning that may go beyond the issue of how how densely urban a city is. It reflects how many people literally have a residence inside a city, pay city taxes, have an official city address and use a city's services. The fact remains that raw population has significance.

[nowensone]

^ Since I have mentioned density on several occasions here, I'll take that one. If you'll remember, blburton, I was the guy who originally pointed out the numbers game going on here ("number junkies"), and have countered it with the fact that density is a more revealing number for comparing cities if that must be done, however that was not intended as yet another thing to brag about, my point was that population numbers mean little without the context of density. I also noticed the ranking/bragging going on, and how the cities of WS and GSO are themselves caught up in this and so having annexation wars. Not sure how exactly that got misconstrued. In case my own comment on Raleigh being more dense than Charlotte was unclear, it was intended in the context of this topic - that Charlotte is also annexing [arguably] too much in a bid to grow itself more so than is good. Also that land area numbers varying from source to source is a little odd, this is usually the kind of thing that is better known, unlike pop. figures. Regarding growth, only Quality can be the indicator of success and something worth bragging about. Wait - that's still bragging... Nevermind.

[HOTSPOTTNY]

^ Since I have mentioned density on several occasions here, I'll take that one. If you'll remember, blburton, I was the guy who originally pointed out the numbers game going on here ("number junkies"), and have countered it with the fact that density is a more revealing number for comparing cities if that must be done, however that was not intended as yet another thing to brag about, my point was that population numbers mean little without the context of density. I also noticed the ranking/bragging going on, and how the cities of WS and GSO are themselves caught up in this and so having annexation wars. Not sure how exactly that got misconstrued. In case my own comment on Raleigh being more dense than Charlotte was unclear, it was intended in the context of this topic - that Charlotte is also annexing [arguably] too much in a bid to grow itself more so than is good. Also that land area numbers varying from source to source is a little odd, this is usually the kind of thing that is better known, unlike pop. figures. Regarding growth, only Quality can be the indicator of success and something worth bragging about. Wait - that's still bragging... Nevermind.

Hello to everyone! Raleigh is not ,and will not be denser than CLT for a long time ,if ever.I'm not trying to belittle any city or place but its just common sense and I've lived in Raleigh and Charlotte and the cities are more different than alike .WS is a growing city like most cities in the south as well as most of the USA and it seems like things are starting to look up for WS and the south as a whole, I congratulate the area!!

[krazeeboi]

Hello to everyone! Raleigh is not ,and will not be denser than CLT for a long time ,if ever.

Too late, it already is (although not by much).

Charlotte, persons per sq mi (2000): 2,232.4

Raleigh, persons per sq mi (2000): 2,409.2

The 2000 figures were the most recent I could find.

Density shouldn't be confused with size. Several smaller cities are much denser than larger ones.

[blburton]

I was looking at the annexation map and Clemmons, Lewisville, Rural Hall, Kernersville, and Walkertown will share town/city limit borders with W-S. Isn't that every municipality in the county?

[MR-2]

Too late, it already is (although not by much).

Charlotte, persons per sq mi (2000): 2,232.4

Raleigh, persons per sq mi (2000): 2,409.2

The 2000 figures were the most recent I could find.

Density shouldn't be confused with size. Several smaller cities are much denser than larger ones.

The 2005 figures still have Raleigh denser. Our McMansions are slightly closer together, I guess.