Jump to content

Triangle overtaking Metro Charlotte in population?


Recommended Posts

I'm not understanding the statements that the Raleigh and Charlotte metros are similar in size. Charlotte still has a > 600K lead on Raleigh, CSA v. CSA. Wil nearly equal absolute #s of people being added per year, this lead is not going to evaporate anytime soon.

No offense, but I don't think comparing the CSA's are a good idea. The CSA's are so large, with vast expanses of rural areas in between, that I don't think it is a really good measure of a metro's size. I think comparing MSA's are a better measure of comparing the size of the areas. The micropolitan areas, in my opinion, are typically their own self-sustaining areas. For instance, I do not consider Smithfied or Dunn a part of the Triangle.

Even comparing MSA's are difficult since the Triangle is broken up into 2 regions, Durham and Raleigh, eventhough they share an airport, retail, housing and job centers . Combining Raleigh and Durham may not be fair either, but if you do they are much closer in size than 600K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

No offense, but I don't think comparing the CSA's are a good idea. The CSA's are so large, with vast expanses of rural areas in between, that I don't think it is a really good measure of a metro's size. I think comparing MSA's are a better measure of comparing the size of the areas. The micropolitan areas, in my opinion, are typically their own self-sustaining areas. For instance, I do not consider Smithfied or Dunn a part of the Triangle.

Even comparing MSA's are difficult since the Triangle is broken up into 2 regions, Durham and Raleigh, eventhough they share an airport, retail, housing and job centers . Combining Raleigh and Durham may not be fair either, but if you do they are much closer in size than 600K.

I agree with you that Dunn is separate. However, Smithfield is very much a part of the triangle when you consider that over half it's working population commutes to Raleigh everyday. Also, if you consider that most of its youth spend free time in the city, and most of its housewives and other shoppers drive to the city for great shopping, doctor's appointments, etc. It is very clear that Smithfield is a suburb as much as Clayton and Garner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No offense, but I don't think comparing the CSA's are a good idea. The CSA's are so large, with vast expanses of rural areas in between, that I don't think it is a really good measure of a metro's size. I think comparing MSA's are a better measure of comparing the size of the areas. The micropolitan areas, in my opinion, are typically their own self-sustaining areas. For instance, I do not consider Smithfied or Dunn a part of the Triangle.

Even comparing MSA's are difficult since the Triangle is broken up into 2 regions, Durham and Raleigh, eventhough they share an airport, retail, housing and job centers . Combining Raleigh and Durham may not be fair either, but if you do they are much closer in size than 600K.

That's why I did not quote MSAs....as currently defined, that would split Durham away from Raleigh, and the results would be meaningless. On the flip, using MSAs for Charlotte deletes counties which are directly adjacent to Mecklenburg. I think CSA comparisons are the best way to get a handle on the regional and functional population of the two areas. Maybe 2010 will see some much needed redefinitions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Metropolitan, I agree 100% with your logic, and tried to argue your point about 3 pages ago. IMO, looking at the CSA is like looking at where these metros are headed, whereas looking at MSAs is like looking where they are. It just makes sense to look at where the future growth will be and include what's already there as part of this comparison.

Nobody agreed with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What role does mass transit play in all of this? Charlotte's light rail system (the south line) is currently under construction, and there is serious talk about extending a commuter rail line down here to York County. I hear that the Triangle is having problems getting this off the ground. So even if the Triangle does surpass metro Charlotte in population, Charlotte's growth will be more compact and dense than the Triangle's I think--not that either metro area is sprawl free, but Charlotte's growth will be more sustainable.

Hope Charlotte's growth doesn't grow more and more "compact" (a leftist buzzword for social engineering), because, according to the actual real data, it is the compact, dense growth that is not "sustainable" (another leftist scare-word). Dense cities are the most crowded, polluted, expensive, and traffic choked, not the spread out ones. It is scary how many people are falling for these leftist radical propaganda tactics to destroy the American success story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hope Charlotte's growth doesn't grow more and more "compact" (a leftist buzzword for social engineering), because, according to the actual real data, it is the compact, dense growth that is not "sustainable" (another leftist scare-word). Dense cities are the most crowded, polluted, expensive, and traffic choked, not the spread out ones. It is scary how many people are falling for these leftist radical propaganda tactics to destroy the American success story.

The whole point of in-fill is to offer the citizens other means of transportation to get them out of cars. As it stands now Charlotte has some of the worst air in the southeast. So being spread out is not that successful either. I hope the new ligh rail initiatives will reduce the traffic. If that happens and the rail lines are a success then maybe other cities in NC will get their acts together and put up propsals that will actually get funded. Integration of transit systems is the smartest way to go. If light rail stops are where people live and where they want to go then there is nothing wrong with dense neighborhoods. It all comes down to convenience. Quality service, short wait times and frequent stops...the keys to rail based transit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, as for the density debate, I have to disagree. The more people that live close to their jobs, the fewer cars on the highway for shorter time intervals. Thus, the less gridlock, the less pollution. The densest cities may be the most polluted and expensive because they are already some of the largest cities in America to begin with. Those are issues facing any major city as they have suburbs galore.

I for one believe the AQ law coming into place is an important one in NC but seems to have taken direct aim at the Charlotte region as it was already the only metro with major AQ issues to begin with. As Charlotte has a defined CBD, of course the majority of traffic is going into a single consolidated area. This in turn causes more traffic and, thus, more pollution. On the other hand, the Triangle has two minor cores and a major research park. This provides for several areas in which drivers are headed towards. This basically eliminates the issues caused by high levels of motorists headed into a single area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hope Charlotte's growth doesn't grow more and more "compact" (a leftist buzzword for social engineering), because, according to the actual real data, it is the compact, dense growth that is not "sustainable" (another leftist scare-word). Dense cities are the most crowded, polluted, expensive, and traffic choked, not the spread out ones. It is scary how many people are falling for these leftist radical propaganda tactics to destroy the American success story.

Well there's always Hiddenite. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hope Charlotte's growth doesn't grow more and more "compact" (a leftist buzzword for social engineering), because, according to the actual real data, it is the compact, dense growth that is not "sustainable" (another leftist scare-word). Dense cities are the most crowded, polluted, expensive, and traffic choked, not the spread out ones. It is scary how many people are falling for these leftist radical propaganda tactics to destroy the American success story.

Leftist? Give me leftist anyday over the rightwing rape of our environment and slavish devotion to big corporate polluters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hope Charlotte's growth doesn't grow more and more "compact" (a leftist buzzword for social engineering), because, according to the actual real data, it is the compact, dense growth that is not "sustainable" (another leftist scare-word). Dense cities are the most crowded, polluted, expensive, and traffic choked, not the spread out ones. It is scary how many people are falling for these leftist radical propaganda tactics to destroy the American success story.

I recommend a trip to Europe or Japan. The reality is much different than whatever data you are looking at suggests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hope Charlotte's growth doesn't grow more and more "compact" (a leftist buzzword for social engineering), because, according to the actual real data, it is the compact, dense growth that is not "sustainable" (another leftist scare-word). Dense cities are the most crowded, polluted, expensive, and traffic choked, not the spread out ones. It is scary how many people are falling for these leftist radical propaganda tactics to destroy the American success story.

Or perhaps American collusion between corporations and government has invented false ideals of the American success story, and irreparably damaged the market in a way that prevents smart city planning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or perhaps American collusion between corporations and government has invented false ideals of the American success story, and irreparably damaged the market in a way that prevents smart city planning.

very interesting notion. one that we don't delve into b/c the word "america" might be followed by a question mark. when will people realize that questioning or critiquing something - doesn't mean you are not in support of it... i think it's more than often, the opposite.

the quick and easy thing to do is to invent characteristics of "leftist" theories (or conservative) - and that the solution therein lies with the squelching of the accused political ideology.

unifour, you made some debatable points - but your coloring them with imaginary political stabs is laughable. the best is when you use the word "sustainable" (in which you claim is "another leftist scare-word").... yet, YOU use it as a scare tactic towards charlottes densification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hope Charlotte's growth doesn't grow more and more "compact" (a leftist buzzword for social engineering), because, according to the actual real data, it is the compact, dense growth that is not "sustainable" (another leftist scare-word). Dense cities are the most crowded, polluted, expensive, and traffic choked, not the spread out ones. It is scary how many people are falling for these leftist radical propaganda tactics to destroy the American success story.

Wow, I can't disagree more with this. Ask Atlanta how hyper-sprawl over a 12-15 county area has worked out for their air quality. Only after getting shut down by the feds in 1998, being sued, and then finally taking some positive action, has Atlanta begun to deal with their horrible AQ and terrible land use/transit planning.

Due in large part to sprawling development patterns and limited transportation choices, Atlantans drive more than 100 million miles per day − equivalent to a trip to the sun and part of the way back. Atlanta has also been ranked with the fifth worst traffic congestion in the country with annual average delays per traveler of 60 hours, costing the region about $1.7 billion annually.

The 13-county Atlanta region has the worst ozone pollution of any major city in the Southeast. Since the Clean Air Act was overhauled in 1977, Atlanta has never been in compliance with ozone standards. For 69 days during the summer of 1999, ozone pollution violated air quality health standards. On bad air days there is a 35 percent increase in emergency room visits for respiratory-related illnesses (mainly children and the elderly). During the 1996 Olympics, when fewer people used cars and more people used transit, emergency room visits by children with asthma dropped by as much as 45 percent.

A recently completed study undertaken by the Georgia Institute of Technology, supports the notion that higher levels of land-use mix, residential density, employer density and street connectivity are associated with reduced VMT and air pollution emissions and increases in physical activity and transit use. The Strategies for Metropolitan Atlanta

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hope Charlotte's growth doesn't grow more and more "compact" (a leftist buzzword for social engineering), because, according to the actual real data, it is the compact, dense growth that is not "sustainable" (another leftist scare-word). Dense cities are the most crowded, polluted, expensive, and traffic choked, not the spread out ones. It is scary how many people are falling for these leftist radical propaganda tactics to destroy the American success story.

:rofl: Umm, compact is term describing things in a small area. Like a "compact disc" is smaller than a laser disc.

Want social engineering? Go to Cary, NC. The entire suburb has been designed to prevent you from walking anywhere. Go to a compact community where you can walk or drive to the grocery store, and experience personal choice.

As for pollution, the American Lung Association studies pollution every year in the State of the Air report. If your claims had any truth to them, New York, the densest city in the US, would be ahead of Los Angeles, the poster child for American sprawl. However, the big sprawlers in CA are way ahead of New York in just about every pollution category.

http://lungaction.org/reports/sota06_cities.html#table2a

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dense cities are the most crowded, polluted, expensive, and traffic choked, not the spread out ones.

And on top of that, there's nowhere to park my Hummer! How can I support the troops if I'm not guzzling down gas at 7 miles per gallon?

I hope you're not shocked by the responses to your radical comments, Unifour. This is URBANplanet after all, not SUBURBANplanet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well, it could happen that metro Raleigh-Durham passes metro Charlotte if the the growth continues and if the US Office of Management and Budget growings what counties forms MSA areas. The OMB often adds counties to MSAs when those areas get more urban.

This is how the 3 areas of the state compare in terms of land area.

6,493 sq miles Charlotte-Gastonia-Salisbury, NC-SC Combined Statistical Area

4,563 sq miles Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High Point, NC Combined Statistical Area

4,548 sq miles Raleigh-Durham-Cary, NC Combined Statistical Area

July 1, 2005

Charlotte-Gastonia-Salisbury, NC-SC 2,120,745

Raleigh-Durham-Cary, NC 1,509,560

Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High Point, NC 1,490,886

Here's examples of more metro areas in population and land area in the South

Orlando-The Villages, FL 1,997,437

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 2,647,658

Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC 1,647,346

Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Columbia, TN 1,498,836

Memphis, TN-MS-AR 1,260,905

Jacksonville, FL 1,248,371

Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 6,021,329

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL 5,422,200

Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX 5,380,661

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville, GA 5,266,134

Birmingham-Hoover-Cullman, AL 1,170,012

Richmond-Petersburg, VA 1,175,654

Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson 1,185,534

4,073 sq miles Orlando-The Villages, FL Combined Statistical Area

2,548 sq miles Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

2,660 sq miles Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC Metropolitan Statistical Area

6,287 sq miles Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Columbia, TN Combined Statistical Area

4,588 sq miles Memphis, TN-MS-AR Metropolitan Statistical Area

3,219 sq miles Jacksonville, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

12,360 sq miles Dallas-Fort Worth, TX Combined Statistical Area

5,188 sq miles Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area

10,908 sq miles Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX Combined Statistical Area

10,429 sq miles Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville, GA Combined Statistical Area

6,070 sq miles Birmingham-Hoover-Cullman, AL Combined Statistical Area

5,724 sq miles Richmond, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area

5,078 sq miles Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson, SC Combined Statistical Area

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, I can't disagree more with this. Ask Atlanta how hyper-sprawl over a 12-15 county area has worked out for their air quality. Only after getting shut down by the feds in 1998, being sued, and then finally taking some positive action, has Atlanta begun to deal with their horrible AQ and terrible land use/transit planning.

You fail to note that the 11 GA counties in the Atlanta area are very very small. Equal to 6 or 7 NC counties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well no it doesn't. We have already explained how it works above.

Actually many metros have grown over the years. What we now know as Combined Statistical Areas (which use to be the consolidated metropolitan statistical areas) are not the same as what they use to be.

Atlanta is a good example when you look at its counties going back to 1970, 1980 and 2003.

The OMB has been responsible for the official metropolitan areas since they were first defined, except for the period 1977 to 1981, when they were the responsibility of the Office of Federal Statistical Policy and Standards, Department of Commerce. The standards for defining metropolitan areas were modified in 1958, 1971, 1975, 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2003.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it could happen that metro Raleigh-Durham passes metro Charlotte if the the growth continues and if the US Office of Management and Budget growings what counties forms MSA areas. The OMB often adds counties to MSAs when those areas get more urban.

This is how the 3 areas of the state compare in terms of land area.

(population statistics)

This interested me, so I did some number crunching for densities: (in people/square mile)

Charlotte-Gastonia-Salisbury, NC-SC - 326.62

Raleigh-Durham-Cary, NC - 331.92

Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High Point, NC - 326.73

Orlando-The Villages, FL - 490.41

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL - 1039.1

Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC - 619.3

Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Columbia, TN - 238.4

Memphis, TN-MS-AR - 274.83

Jacksonville, FL - 387.81

Dallas-Fort Worth, TX - 487.16

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL - 1045.1

Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX - 493.28

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville, GA - 504.95

Birmingham-Hoover-Cullman, AL - 192.75

Richmond-Petersburg, VA - 205.39

Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson - 233.46

It seems that NC's cities are middle of the road, lacking the density of much larger areas like Houston and Miami, but having a bit more than smaller areas like Greenville and Birmingham. I would take the time to mention that counties develop asymmetrically, and all of the areas have counties that only contribute a few thousand in population, but a huge amount in land area. Some types of physical landmarks increase or decrease that effect, depending how the counties are set up (mountains, oceans, county sizes).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are those estimates taking into account wetlands? I would imagine that the densities in the Floridian cities would be higher if only considering developable lands.

Also, was this a measure of CSA or MSA? As most of Charlotte's CSA is not contiguous development and include's a lot of farmland as I am sure the other NC metros do as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As we have said many times in this thread, CSA comparisons are really a waste of time as they contain vast areas that will never be developed. I am not sure why people continue to insist that measuring the density, population or land area of a CSA gives ANY relevant or meaningful info.

A CSA is an indication of how various urban areas relate to each other economically, they are not a measure of the size of a city or metro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As we have said many times in this thread, CSA comparisons are really a waste of time as they contain vast areas that will never be developed. I am not sure why people continue to insist that measuring the density, population or land area of a CSA gives ANY relevant or meaningful info.

A CSA is an indication of how various urban areas relate to each other economically, they are not a measure of the size of a city or metro.

This is true in some repects. Take the Hampton roads for example. Newport News can't grow to the south because of the James river...it borders Hampton to the east and the James river again to the west. I would expect it to be dense because it can only grow northward. This is true for Hampton also. Norfolk is bound by water VA Beach and Chesapeake. So yes there is a lot of water incorporated in to HRs CSA but because of the water the cities themselves became dense. There are no limitations to Raleigh or Durhams growth land wise. I know I have read here that Charlotte can't grow land wise too much more but then again the surrounding cities would incur its sprawl. I have to agree with metro on this. CSA are just to broad to compare especially if you take in the geography of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.