Jump to content

U.S. Census: Charlotte has fastest growing large city urbanized area


DCMetroRaleigh

Recommended Posts

  • 3 months later...

  • Replies 133
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I would guess that most of us are happy to be on the city-growth side of this data. We're in good company!

http://www.citylab.com/housing/2014/06/where-cities-are-growing-faster-than-their-suburbs/372656/

 

That article actually irritates me.  The love affair with Austin is getting out of hand.  Looking at the statistics they present, Austin's suburbs BLATANTLY outgrew the city proper, yet the heading of the article states the exact opposite.  It's dumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That article actually irritates me.  The love affair with Austin is getting out of hand.  Looking at the statistics they present, Austin's suburbs BLATANTLY outgrew the city proper, yet the heading of the article states the exact opposite.  It's dumb.

I'll agree about the "love affair with Austin is getting out of hand" sentiment.  But the poorly written article with confusing data is actually correct.  This quote from the article is a clue:  

 

"All of these metros experienced faster growth in their primary cities than the San Francisco, Boston, or New York metros did."

 

The chart presented shows the central city VS. their suburban population.  But they are actually comparing the primary cities in each metro to the rest of the suburbs, not the primary city to all suburbs.  In the case of Austin, Round Rock is a primary city, and removing Round Rock's growth from the suburbs diminishes the suburban number.  San Marcos which has been the fastest growing city in the U.S. (50K + population) for the past two years per the Census Bureau may also be considered a primary city since the Austin metro is called the Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos MSA.

 

In addition to being confusing, the article is pretty worthless in that the data points cover a short time frame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll agree about the "love affair with Austin is getting out of hand" sentiment.  But the poorly written article with confusing data is actually correct.  This quote from the article is a clue:  

 

"All of these metros experienced faster growth in their primary cities than the San Francisco, Boston, or New York metros did."

 

The chart presented shows the central city VS. their suburban population.  But they are actually comparing the primary cities in each metro to the rest of the suburbs, not the primary city to all suburbs.  In the case of Austin, Round Rock is a primary city, and removing Round Rock's growth from the suburbs diminishes the suburban number.  San Marcos which has been the fastest growing city in the U.S. (50K + population) for the past two years per the Census Bureau may also be considered a primary city since the Austin metro is called the Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos MSA.

 

In addition to being confusing, the article is pretty worthless in that the data points cover a short time frame.

 

Ah okay.  Thank you for the clarification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a side note, the ever growing number of these top 10 city lists is getting ridiculous, with Forbes being the worst offender of stupid lists.  Most of these top 10 lists are are really number #3 to #10 lists because Austin and Raleigh seem to be automatically plugged in to the #1 and #2 spots. :)    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard Florida is what one would refer to as a "tool".  He has a strong dislike for Charlotte (I had the misfortune of working with him here in the mid 2000s and saw and heard it first-hand).  Here's a better article on the same topic.  http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304830704577493032619987956

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would guess that most of us are happy to be on the city-growth side of this data. We're in good company!

http://www.citylab.com/housing/2014/06/where-cities-are-growing-faster-than-their-suburbs/372656/

 

What would be more compelling to me is a comparison of the growth rates in 'urban' census block groups to the 'suburban' ones. The fact that New York and DC are growing faster than their suburbs is impressive because it shows that more and more people are moving back to urban places that represent the urban core of their respective regions. Charlotte and Raleigh are geographically large cities that contain small urban cores (relative to their large geographical areas). I know there is substantial growth in our urban core (South End, 3rd Ward), so it would be ideal to see our areas broken out in the same way. My guess is that we would still show an impressive growth rate compared to urban cores of larger cities, but I'm not convinced it would outpace all of the area with suburban style development inside and outside of the city limits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard Florida is what one would refer to as a "tool".  He has a strong dislike for Charlotte (I had the misfortune of working with him here in the mid 2000s and saw and heard it first-hand).  Here's a better article on the same topic.  http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304830704577493032619987956

 

Agree about Florida...  

 

Thanks for the link...

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.