Charlotte Now Over 750,000

[desertpunk]

Originally Posted by WeimieLvr

Okay...could you post a more defensive response?

Calm down...nobody was trying to slight Charlotte. I believe you asked what Charlotte annexed last year so I looked it up and responded. Get over it.

You guys in Atlanta should have annexed all of Fulton County long ago. Cities that basically contain their own 'suburbs' have fared much better over the past few decades. But Atlanta could still get much denser and move right up the charts ...if neighborhood groups don't injunct those efforts.

[WeimieLvr]

Originally Posted by desertpunk

You guys in Atlanta should have annexed all of Fulton County long ago. Cities that basically contain their own 'suburbs' have fared much better over the past few decades. But Atlanta could still get much denser and move right up the charts ...if neighborhood groups don't injunct those efforts.

Infill growth is what I would prefer and would make me prouder of my city...cities in the South catch a lot of crap for being full of low-density sprawl, so suburban annexation seems to just perpetuate the idea. I mean, annexation is fine and actually necessary at times for a city to remain healthy, but it's not the most impressive way to grow.

Fulton County is way too long to be totally annexed...what a weird shaped city Atlanta would be.

[papa_spaz]

Population gains:

Houston= 45,716
San Antonio= 32,152
Austin= 30,221
Dallas= 25,413
Fort Worth= 16,708
El Paso= 16,416


It looks like all of Texas is doing very well. Maybe Obama can take notes from Texas.

[ohpenn]

It looks like all of Texas is doing very well. Maybe Obama can take notes from Texas.

what does that statement even mean?

[krazeeboi]

Originally Posted by WeimieLvr

Infill growth is what I would prefer and would make me prouder of my city...cities in the South catch a lot of crap for being full of low-density sprawl, so suburban annexation seems to just perpetuate the idea. I mean, annexation is fine and actually necessary at times for a city to remain healthy, but it's not the most impressive way to grow.

Well by and large Southern cities weren't as developed to begin with compared to our Northern counterparts, so we'd still catch flack on that end even without annexation. But even the denser cities that can annex a large amount of land do so when the opportunity presents itself, like Kansas City.

The upside is that annexation has the potential to set Southern cities up for greater development and density over the long run. It's a good strategy with a view towards the future.

[desertpunk]

Originally Posted by krazeeboi

Well by and large Southern cities weren't as developed to begin with compared to our Northern counterparts, so we'd still catch flack on that end even without annexation. But even the denser cities that can annex a large amount of land do so when the opportunity presents itself, like Kansas City.

The upside is that annexation has the potential to set Southern cities up for greater development and density over the long run. It's a good strategy with a view towards the future.

Yep, and annexing suburbs increases the tax base which PAYS for nice things like subways, light rail, and all that other stuff that people want so desperately to avoid the haughty sneers of Europeans...and Yankee Northerners!

[WeimieLvr]

I'm sure there are many ways to justify annexation as something positive, but for lovers of all things urban it's still hard to swallow. I would rather see Charlotte with smaller boundaries and more density, but I guess the city just isn't built that way. Oh well.

[IberiaCLT]

Originally Posted by WeimieLvr

I'm sure there are many ways to justify annexation as something positive, but for lovers of all things urban it's still hard to swallow. I would rather see Charlotte with smaller boundaries and more density, but I guess the city just isn't built that way. Oh well.

... Never thought I would hear someone from Atlanta talking about other cities not being built "that way". Isn't Atlanta the poster child for urban sprawl?



Just as our urban boundaries may be skewed to make our city larger, your city boundaries make your city denser than what it should be.

[spencer114]

Annexation works for the first 20 years. You initially boost the tax base but ultimately take on more infrastructure and people to take care of. Leapfrog development takes business out of the boundaries leaving aging inner suburbs, decreased property values and more schools, fire stations, sewage treatment and roads to maintain.

[WeimieLvr]

Originally Posted by IberiaCLT

... Never thought I would hear someone from Atlanta talking about other cities not being built "that way". Isn't Atlanta the poster child for urban sprawl?



Just as our urban boundaries may be skewed to make our city larger, your city boundaries make your city denser than what it should be.

Dude, there is no need for you to be so defensive. It's just a discussion and (let me reiterate) I'm not putting down your city. The CITY of Atlanta isn't the poster child for sprawl - isn't that what we're talking about here?

That second comment makes no sense, so I don't even know how to respond. You might wanna think about reacting with some logical thoughts rather than jumping off half-cocked. No one else is responding this way.

[WeimieLvr]

Originally Posted by spencer114

Annexation works for the first 20 years. You initially boost the tax base but ultimately take on more infrastructure and people to take care of. Leapfrog development takes business out of the boundaries leaving aging inner suburbs, decreased property values and more schools, fire stations, sewage treatment and roads to maintain.

Let's see what Iberia throws back at you about Richmond...

[IberiaCLT]

Originally Posted by WeimieLvr

Dude, there is no need for you to be so defensive. It's just a discussion and (let me reiterate) I'm not putting down your city. The CITY of Atlanta isn't the poster child for sprawl - isn't that what we're talking about here?

That second comment makes no sense, so I don't even know how to respond. You might wanna think about reacting with some logical thoughts rather than jumping off half-cocked. No one else is responding this way.

So defensive. I wasn't putting down Atlanta, don't worry...I'm just saying. Ligthen up

[desertpunk]

Originally Posted by WeimieLvr

Dude, there is no need for you to be so defensive. It's just a discussion and (let me reiterate) I'm not putting down your city. The CITY of Atlanta isn't the poster child for sprawl - isn't that what we're talking about here?

That second comment makes no sense, so I don't even know how to respond. You might wanna think about reacting with some logical thoughts rather than jumping off half-cocked. No one else is responding this way.

There's nothing for anyone here to be defensive about. Southern cities (with the exception of New Orleans) lagged their fully-urbanized Northern cousins for generations until WW2. Thereafter, all US cities experienced sprawl. The difference is that while cities in the Northeast and Midwest lost density as residents emptied out into the suburbs, Southern suburbs sprang up around the fairly low density cities most which were growing also. There's little chance of Southern cities like Atlanta or Charlotte ever being as dense as Detroit or Chicago once were because no one would ever buy up whole neighborhoods of well-kept detached single family homes and replace them with denser development. Sprawl is encoded in the DNA.

The question is whether cities can control the pace and shape of growth or cede that to suburbs and unincorporated areas which thrive on being paths of least resistance for developers. Western cities which are very urbanized yet sprawling, keep annexing and growing for this very reason: the more control cities have over these issues, the stronger, more efficient and flexible they become. Cities like Buffalo and St Louis that remained constrained in small boundaries lost that ability decades ago and are commonly written off as "lost causes". Only 'Gateway Cities' like New York, San Francisco or Boston, or cities that are also global power centers (Washington DC) can escape that fate. Due to its airport, Atlanta arguably has a Gateway City characteristic. Charlotte was a financial power center but that's waned since 2007.

[WeimieLvr]

Originally Posted by IberiaCLT

So defensive. I wasn't putting down Atlanta, don't worry...I'm just saying. Ligthen up

I have no further response to this. You are just not going to understand what I'm saying, and your responses are only hijacking/ruining an otherwise interesting thread. Good day.

[WeimieLvr]

Originally Posted by desertpunk

There's nothing for anyone here to be defensive about. Southern cities (with the exception of New Orleans) lagged their fully-urbanized Northern cousins for generations until WW2. Thereafter, all US cities experienced sprawl. The difference is that while cities in the Northeast and Midwest lost density as residents emptied out into the suburbs, Southern suburbs sprang up around the fairly low density cities most which were growing also. There's little chance of Southern cities like Atlanta or Charlotte ever being as dense as Detroit or Chicago once were because no one would ever buy up whole neighborhoods of well-kept detached single family homes and replace them with denser development. Sprawl is encoded in the DNA.

The question is whether cities can control the pace and shape of growth or cede that to suburbs and unincorporated areas which thrive on being paths of least resistance for developers. Western cities which are very urbanized yet sprawling, keep annexing and growing for this very reason: the more control cities have over these issues, the stronger, more efficient and flexible they become. Cities like Buffalo and St Louis that remained constrained in small boundaries lost that ability decades ago and are commonly written off as "lost causes". Only 'Gateway Cities' like New York, San Francisco or Boston, or cities that are also global power centers (Washington DC) can escape that fate. Due to its airport, Atlanta arguably has a Gateway City characteristic. Charlotte was a financial power center but that's waned since 2007.

Excellent stuff...I like your perspective, and I guess since you aren't from Atlanta you won't get jumped on for your response.

[krazeeboi]

Originally Posted by WeimieLvr

I'm sure there are many ways to justify annexation as something positive, but for lovers of all things urban it's still hard to swallow. I would rather see Charlotte with smaller boundaries and more density, but I guess the city just isn't built that way. Oh well.

Annexation doesn't have to be "justified" as a positive thing; it generally is a positive thing as long as it's done smartly and resources aren't stretched too thin. Having the city appear to be more dense on paper by having smaller boundaries doesn't mean much when there's still low-density sprawl surrounding it in all directions (which is the case for Southern cities in general). People are still going to judge how dense the city is based on the core and surrounding areas, which is why Kansas City is generally thought of as being denser than Charlotte, although on paper Charlotte is denser.

Originally Posted by spencer114

Annexation works for the first 20 years. You initially boost the tax base but ultimately take on more infrastructure and people to take care of. Leapfrog development takes business out of the boundaries leaving aging inner suburbs, decreased property values and more schools, fire stations, sewage treatment and roads to maintain.

This isn't necessarily true across the board and of course it depends on what areas are annexed. The aging inner suburbs have long been within the Charlotte city limits, and leapfrog development has its limits (which is also within Charlotte's city limits). This setup sure beats only having a semi-struggling core and first-ring suburbs in the city limits, plus it makes it harder for paper "anti-cities" to pop up which increases regional balkanization and makes it harder for things to get done.

[RandomNameTag]

Originally Posted by papa_spaz

Population gains:

Houston= 45,716
San Antonio= 32,152
Austin= 30,221
Dallas= 25,413
Fort Worth= 16,708
El Paso= 16,416


It looks like all of Texas is doing very well. Maybe Obama can take notes from Texas.

Texas may be a GOP state, but Austin and especially El Paso tend to vote Democrat.

[jam5]

Originally Posted by desertpunk

Southern cities (with the exception of New Orleans) lagged their fully-urbanized Northern cousins for generations until WW2. Thereafter, all US cities experienced sprawl. The difference is that while cities in the Northeast and Midwest lost density as residents emptied out into the suburbs, Southern suburbs sprang up around the fairly low density cities most which were growing also. There's little chance of Southern cities like Atlanta or Charlotte ever being as dense as Detroit or Chicago once were because no one would ever buy up whole neighborhoods of well-kept detached single family homes and replace them with denser development. Sprawl is encoded in the DNA.

By this definition, shouldn't Washington, D.C. (surrounded by its sprawling suburbs) be classified as a southern city? If not, why not?

[CNB30]

[NorthDallas]

Originally Posted by RandomNameTag

Texas may be a GOP state, but Austin and especially El Paso tend to vote Democrat.

Include Dallas and Houston to that as well!! ;-)