Growth is great, right, cancer?
Sioux Falls continues to be one of the fastest-growing cities in the country. According to Census data complied by Governing's Mike Maciag, Sioux Falls added 4,446 residents from July 2012 to July 2013. That's 2.8% annual growth. Compare that 0.72% for the U.S. and 1.1% for the planet over the same period.
Sustain 2.8% annual growth, and Sioux Falls will double in population every 25 years.
2.8% makes Sioux Falls #11 out of cities over 100,000 people. Among the cities growing faster is Fargo. Fargo!
| Rank | City | State | % change | Total change | 2012 pop | 2013 pop |
| 1 | Frisco | Texas | 6.5 | 8,328 | 128,463 | 136,791 |
| 2 | Odessa | Texas | 4 | 4,220 | 106,500 | 110,720 |
| 3 | Gilbert | Arizona | 4 | 8,749 | 221,223 | 229,972 |
| 4 | McKinney | Texas | 3.9 | 5,527 | 143,032 | 148,559 |
| 5 | Midland | Texas | 3.6 | 4,268 | 119,665 | 123,933 |
| 6 | Cary | North Carolina | 3.6 | 5,294 | 145,794 | 151,088 |
| 7 | Fargo | North Dakota | 3.2 | 3,516 | 110,142 | 113,658 |
| 8 | Irvine | California | 3.2 | 7,343 | 229,373 | 236,716 |
| 9 | Round Rock | Texas | 2.9 | 3,111 | 106,710 | 109,821 |
| 10 | Murfreesboro | Tennessee | 2.8 | 3,173 | 113,871 | 117,044 |
Minneapolis is #35 on the list, only growing at 1.9%. Sustain those rates, and Sioux Falls will surpass Minneapolis in population by 2113, when both cities would have a little over 2.5 million people. Throw St. Paul in (#86, 1.3% growth), and Sioux Falls doesn't catch up with the Twin Cities until 2147, when both metros would have over 6.4 million. But then it would only be fair to compare the Twin Cities to Sioux Falls + Harrisburg and all the outlying suburbs (Madison and Beresford will be Sioux Falls's Wayzata and Burnsville)...
But well before then, folks will be comparing Fargo, which at current growth rates will catch Sioux Falls by 2105. Oh! Someone build me robot legs so I can live to see all this!
In 1870 Chicago had 100,000 people.
In 1970 Chicago had 3,500,000 people.
Taxes taxes taxes....The only way Sioux Falls grows is by aggressively raising property taxes every year. People Are moving to outskirts to get away from some of the "new " population which does not pull it's own weight. But Sioux Falls wants to get those dollars lost, they will do the chasing and expanding their boundaries. City County and school district tax and spend more and on a grander scale since 2008....
So, Soo Foo to Fargo could be the next Amtrak route beating Albuquerque to Cheyenne: bummer.
Speaking of cancer:
http://www.ewg.org/agmag/2014/05/study-glyphosate-doubles-risk-lymphoma
http://www.livescience.com/45786-great-plains-gender-gap.html?cmpid=514645
All but 4 of the places listed are suburbs in a multimillion population metro area.
Odessa and Midland, Texas, are next to one another. Only SF and Fargo are stand alone cities among the top ten.
The projections may not be what you expect Cory. Suburban growth has declined, while cities are growing.
All but 4 of the places listed are suburbs in a multimillion population metro area.
Odessa and Midland, Texas, are next to one another. Only SF and Fargo are stand alone cities among the top ten.
The projections may not be what you expect Cory. Suburban growth has declined, while city centers are growing. Both Minneapolis and St. Paul downtowns are in the midst of furious building booms. Other Midwestern cities report similar experiences. For past 5 years or so, surveys continue to show that young couples don't want to spend so much time in traffic. Downtown is where they work and play and it's where they want to live.
Minneapolis has Twins stadium downtown, and the new Vikings stadium will be there, pause 2 big office buildings, hotels and a 4 block park/tailgate party next to the Vikings stadium. Meanwhile, high end apartments and condos have been blooming like flowers in spring for the past 3 years.
In St. Paul they are building a new ball park for the always wildly popular Saints minor league team.
Edgy restaurants and bars may soon be more common than mosquitoes in the MN metro.
"The big takeaway here is that the pace of our growth is accelerating,” said Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges. “And that’s exactly what I want to see.”
Read the whole article here:
Here:
http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/260207621.html
Dammit.
Endless growth is not sustainable.
Just like cancer.
Urbanism is supplanting sub-urbanism all over the country. the same is true in SF Metro area. There has been a moratorium on new "rural residential" development in Minnehaha and Lincoln counties for over a decade. Sprawl is only one form (unsustainable) of growth and development. Increasing density is becoming the "new way" of growing cities. City and county governments have come to the realization that the 20th century growth patterns (suburban sprawl) puts disproportionate financial pressures on the "core" cities. It has been a century-long automobile enabled experiment, the analysis of which shows - it cannot continue. Ironically, Detroit - motor city - is the best example of what sprawling suburban development can do to a great city. Hollow in the core, bankrupt, derelict, adrift in a sea of suburbs..
Excellent observation, Richard. Density makes for a more efficient use of resources.
So does that mean that instead of swallowing Dell Rapids, Sioux Falls will pile on the hi-rise apartments?
"Density" is the mantra. Some large urban areas took this on a few decades ago. They drew a line around their metros and said that city services would not cross it. It was pretty effective in several states. Oregon was one. I'm sure G-Man can enlighten us more about that. Or tell me if I'm wrong.