Talk:Boomburb

Cape Coral

This "suburb" of Fort Myers is a boomburb in every sense of the defintion except that it is NOW and has been for over 20 years the biggest city in the metro area. So that makes it a main city not a boomburb. If this is a real term and not something someone made up then it needs to be defined and the cities need to be relisted correctly 99.53.171.95 (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)martha

This article is silly and relies too heavily on 'original research' and one source. Clearwater, FL...a boomburb? Ridiculous. Last I checked, the population was stable, and it's been slow-growing. Also, where's Miramar, FL; Port St Lucie, FL; and what happens when Virginia Beach surpasses Norfolk? No discussion of that...→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 00:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Cape Coral-Fort Myers MSA is NOT Top 50 metropolitan area in US.

Also, population of Clearwater has been increased more than 10% each during 1970-2000, so it falls into Lang's definition of boomburb, though it turned to decrease by 1.0% during 2000-2010. Yassie (talk) 02:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Sources

So, there are certainly more municipalities in the United States that fit this (somewhat suspect) definition of a "boomburg." There are a number of such towns in New Jersey and Massachusetts that are not listed here, for example. I don't want to charge ahead and start adding names to the list, but I did add a tag to the article in the hopes that someone might clean it up, update it, and reinforce it with better citations than simply a "references" section that gives no clue as to the provenance of the actual numbers and definitions in the article.--Dmz5 00:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Santa Rosa is likely not a Boomburb, as its population growth is close to 3% and it remains a hub of the Sonoma County wine country. Cities like Rohnert Park, Petaluma and Windosor are bedroom communities/satellites to Santa Rosa. By some measures, Sonoma County isn't even part of the Bay Area proper. Sorry for the lack of citation. Refer to the Santa Rosa, California article for more demographic info.

Also, Salem is likewise its own city with few suburban style ties to Portland. --Sirlearnsalot 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Santa Rosa IS a boomburb, as its decadely population growth during 1970-2000 had been 65.3%, 37.1%, and 30.3% respectively.

Salem was a part of Portland CSA in 2000, when Lang defined boomburb. See this. Yassie (talk) 02:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Trorov and his vandalism

I am submitting a formal mediation request to the Wikipedia admin's over Trorov and his constant vandalism of the page. I have provided sources, advised him that Canadian census data and American census data are released at different and separate times, and requested that he bring it to the :talk per the 3RR rule. He has not listened and shown bad faith over the entire process, and as a result the request is now being made.

Oh, and yes Trorov, Whitby had double-digit growth between 1996 and 2001 - 73,000 to 87,000, 18.5%.[1] From 2001 to 2006, the growth was 87,000 to 111,000 - 27.2%.[2] It is most certainly a boomburb and I have provided sources. There are also numerous other communities in the Toronto area that, while not yet over 100,000 people, are growing by 15-40% per census interval (Milton, from 2001-2006, grew by a staggering 75%). I am not going to post every single bit of data for you when it is publicly available and you have an Internet connection to do it yourself.

Canadian census data is released every five years. We do not follow American census policies of every ten years. Canadian data will be listed with the most up-to-date information. Americentricness (is that even a word?) need not apply to this article. There is absolutely no need to hold back Canadian data just because Americans hold a ten year cycle. This is just being stubborn.

Rather than continue to edit the article in a rude way, an admin will have no choice but to do it for me :-/

Again guys, thank you all for your consideration and understanding while we get this dealt with.

Snickerdo 00:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I could just as easily get upset and accuse "Snickerdo" of "vandalism". I have explained my edits, and just because "Snickerdo" []doesn't agree with them does not make them acts of vandalism.

"Boomburb" was coined by researchers at a U.S. university and applied to U.S. cities - and not to Canadian ones (read the articles at the links given in the article). However, a similar phenomenon can be observed across the border, and so it is reasonable to include Canadian cities in the article that also meet the "Boomburb" criteria. The last official U.S. Census was held in 2000. A U.S. city that has a population that was estimated to have passed 100,000 since 2000 isn't included on the list. To include a Canadian city that has only recently passed the 100,000 mark, while leaving off all of the U.S. cities that have done so as well, creates an apples-to-oranges comparison. To have an apples-to-apples comparison, the Canada Census 2001 should be used, since it reflects most nearly the population of the Canadian cities at the time of the U.S. Census 2000. This has nothing to do with being U.S.-centric, but consistently applying a criterion. Trorov 01:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me...

To have an apples-to-apples comparison, the Canada Census 2001 should be used, since it reflects most nearly the population of the Canadian cities at the time of the U.S. Census 2000.

That is the most arrogant, pig-headed argument I have ever read. Just because the US has not released updated data does not mean that we should withhold vital Canadian data that has just been released. This article should reflect the most up-to-date data. If that means 2000 for the USA and 2006 for Canada, then that's the way it is. If you want more frequent updates, petition your government to do 5-year census cycles rather than telling us we can't post updated data *rolls eyes*

Oh, and and you're on the noticeboard. Your stupidity goes well beyond this initial bit. The results should be interesting.

Tootles, Snickerdo 02:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Lang defined boomburb only for large and fast-growing suburbs in US; suburbs outside US are not defined no matter how large and/or fast-growing they are. Yassie (talk) 03:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Houston & Austin

I added Sugar Land & Pearland to the Houston Region in addition to Round Rock for the Austin Region, because they fit the descriptions of a boomburg. In addition all of these cities are expected to pass the 100,000 mark in the near future. Cardozo 13:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The July 2007 estimate, the latest, put Round Rock at 96,992 people. The population has grown from 2,811 in 1970, to 12,740 in 1980, to 30,923 in 1990, to 61,136 in 2000. I am sure the city is now over 100,000. Why is it not listed?

Pearland is now over 100,000 in population. Whoever is removing it from the list will you please stop it. Cardozo 13:24, 01 May 2010 (UTC)

For apples-to-apples comparisons, only official U.S. Census population estimates are used on Wikipedia. The “Pearland Economic Development Corporation” does not release population estimates for the dozens of other cities in the U.S. that are approaching 100,000 residents - only Pearland. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and there has to be a consistent “measuring stick” that can be used for any city in the country. The U.S. Census Bureau provides that measuring stick, and until it releases an estimate of Pearland’s population greater than 100,000, it does not qualify as a boomburb. Trorov (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

What Lang used to define boomburb is the population back in 2000 census. Sugar Land, Pearland, and Round Rock were all below 100,000 in 2000, so those are not included in his boomburb list. Yassie (talk) 03:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Vancouver WA

For the Portland Area, Vancouver is listed as a Boomburg. It may be true that Vancouver is benefitting from being close to Portland, Oregon, but it is in Washington and should be listed as such. 24.17.39.41 15:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop Original Research

Stop adding, deleting, and/or making new list of fast-growing large suburban cities by judging whether those cities meet boomburb criteria or not by yourself without any sources. That is nothing but an original research that Wikipedia must avoid. Yassie (talk) 03:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Why is Oakland not a boomburb?

Oakland is not the largest city in its metropolitan area San Francisco–Oakland–Hayward, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area but for some reason it is excluded. Which suggests the usage of the term is not at all objective, but entirely subjective based on regional bias. On top of that, it all depends on how you define "metropolitan area." If you were to define, for example, a separate Bellevue Metropolitan Area, then overnight Bellevue WA would cease to be a "boomburb". It has no meaning and like most of these nouveaux pop metropolitan terms, they are used by their wielders as they see fit, not by any objective criteria. -- Keith D. Tyler ¶ 05:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)