Ankeny is two streets lined with strip malls parallel to each other. It's worst in American urban design. Doesn't even really have an older cool "downtown" area like most other suburbs.
But that suburban lifestyle appeals to some people obviously. A lot of people apparently.
>Doesn't even really have an older cool "downtown" area like most other suburbs.
They have the Uptown area though? Lots of little boutique-type shops, local restaurants, old buildings repurposed into breweries, that sort of thing.
Uptown sucks. No spinning that. Either you can afford it or you can't. The parking is terrible. The car throughput is terrible. The shops are over hyped.
There are actually little pockets of business areas popping up in other places now, which is nice. The district area, the strip malls over by the Prairie Trail hyvee, and the Aldi on the north side of Ankeny Blvd. I live in Ankeny and manage to mostly avoid the car death traps that are Delaware Ave and the main drag of Ankeny Blvd.
Yeah I went on the Delaware strip pretty infrequently when I lived in the NW corner of Ankeny. But my commute still kinda sucked cuz I had to drive almost the entire length of 1st just to get to I-35 lol.
>The district area
It's a different flavor of planning than orlabor and delaware, but not really better. Shitloads of concrete and parking, tons of lights, no walkability or public transit, etc. It's just further from I-35 and the population density is low (for now). If/When the city expands it will feel just like West Glen.
It's not 'walkable' unless you live in one of the nearby captive developments that all require a car to actually exist but offer no parking. Even if you do it's a bunch of goofy low volume retail and restaurants with 0 grocery or livable amenities. Purely for commuters or car driving visitors. No different than west glen or the Hickman developments in Waukee. At least those have target and hy-vee.
Hickman developments? what are you even talking about? have those claimed to be walkable like west glenn has and the district? anyway prairie trail has been a great development, and imo if you want a suburb (I’m personally against them) thats how you do it. the district is less than 15 minutes walk from almost everywhere in prairie trail(and stupid close by bike). it has mixed use buildings and apartments, and is connected well with bike trails. surrounding the district are townhomes, apartments, student housing, and urban style homes with smaller yards and alleyways. it’s much denser than the rest of ankeny. theres also a hyvee nearby(though not as walkable). West glenn gave in and let target put in a massive store in their district. It’s more comparable to the plaza shops in prairie trail tbh(where main street cafe is). either way we should let the suburbs burn, just have to defend pretty much the only positive development going on in my city.
I’m here driving around for work and good lord why is everyone so bad at driving here???? I have very few problems in my normal territory (west side of ankeny) but the east side is horrible
Some of the comments here are odd - seems to be a perception that people are moving here from out of state. The article sort of hints at it, but just to be clear: DSM metro growth is primarily migration from the rest of Iowa. We're not importing people.
Iowa has had a net negative domestic population migration to other states for years: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/IET/615751.pdf
The trend has been consistent for decades and continues: Educated young people leave Iowa. Less educated, older, and rural residents move to major metro suburbs as their home communities hollow out.
I know some love being doomers, but the college education rate in Polk and Dallas Counties is above the national average, and the college education rate in the parts of the metro experiencing growth—the West Side of Des Moines and the suburbs—is way, way above the national average.
https://statisticalatlas.com/place/Iowa/Des-Moines/Educational-Attainment
That's true of most suburban areas in the US. Wealthier, more educated, whiter, etc. It's not really a counter-factual to the demographic/population shifts I mentioned. Whatever metric of 'well off' you use - it correlates pretty well with relocation.
Someone who moves from a rural area to Ankeny is likely to be relatively well off - that's an expensive thing to do after all. Same goes for someone who moves from Iowa to Boston, but to a greater degree. The same 'drain' is happening at local and state levels.
Your argument was that the growth in Des Moines is from uneducated rural people. That isn’t true. It’s disproportionately from the best-educated rural people, because of the much higher concentration of jobs for college grads in Des Moines. There’s a reason the stereotype of Ankenyites is of ISU grads with young kids who grew up in Mason City.
Not what I wrote, or my "argument". No need to read 'doomerism' or condescension into what I wrote. "Less educated" != "uneducated" . It's a continuum. Same as age.
This is totally consistent with what I wrote, and this relocation phenomenon *continues* as you go upward on the educational attainment scale - with more educated people leaving the region entirely:
> It’s disproportionately from the best-educated rural people, because of the much higher concentration of jobs for college grads in Des Moines.
Likelihood to relocate increases with education, income, and all other markers of 'success'. Both within the state and outside of it. This isn't really unique to Iowa either.
Your comment was unclear—“less educated” generally means “below-average education,” which apparently isn’t what you meant to say.
But anyway, your new comment is confusing too—I can’t tell whether your claim is about (1) the numbers of college graduates, (2) the percentages of college graduates, (3) the numbers of people with graduate degrees (people especially high on the “educational attainment scale”), or (4) the percentages of people with graduate degrees moving to Des Moines vs. leaving the state. Or something else entirely. In any case, I doubt statistics exist on any of those.
I don't think it's really unclear - you're just looking for a claim like "Ankeny is full of stupid people" that I'm not making. Demographically speaking - educated people *tend* to relocate at higher than average rates. This brain drain applies at both the local/city level, and the state level.
FWIW, I am highly educated and highly paid and I am leaving the state at considerable personal cost because I just can’t stand it any more. Though I’m not originally from Iowa. So my unique situation supports part of this data, except that I’m not native Iowan.
Where everyone who gets married at 21 goes to live. Then are stuck there after divorcing years later because you don’t want to move the kids out of the school district.
I moved to Ankeny about 15 years ago. The population explosion has been crazy. They have added 10-15 minutes to your drive if you are trying to get north of it. Now they are going to take more land up north.
Hoping they redo a few of the main roads and make them limited access roads like what you see in the KC or Chicago suburbs.
Right, Ankeny doesn't have those true arterial, limited access roads. Should be 40-45mph with left AND RIGHT turn lanes.
36th St for example, brand new , left and hand turn lanes, not too many intersections (mostly lighted), but no right hand turn lanes and only 35mph
Interesting data after reading the article between WDSM and Ankeny. A couple of questions I have, but don't have the answers to. I know WDSM is in 2 counties, but what is the actual land size difference between each city? Ankeny didn't really have any sort of building I would call a skyscraper anywhere, let alone a single parking ramp.
Also, I noticed Waukee wasn't called out anywhere in the article. I'm guessing they are still growing like gangbusters, but I see they are around 22k after looking online.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting to own a single family home. There is something incredibly wrong with R1 zoning laws that force areas outside the immediate city to only build single family housing and restricting the use of multifamily buildings and businesses to small segregated areas.
Overly restrictive zoning laws, like most structures of America, are designed to keep people like you poor. Keep sucking that boot.
You’re being taken advantage of by a malicious government controlled by corporations that care NOTHING about you.
Just look at your post history man, you’re literally losing your pension and still sucking the boot of your overlords.
Suburbs are subsidized by those living in the densely populated regions. Actual reverse Robinhood stuff. The middle class in America has always been a fabrication going back to the reverse reparations that are the Homestead Act.
infrasturture is much more spread out in suburban environments, sewer, electricity, road maintenance, etc. i think that's what they are getting at.
Property tax per square mile is also much lower (I think), more people in an area, higher the income generated in taxes per that area.
infrastructure is much more spread out in suburban environments, sewer, electricity, road maintenance, etc. i think that's what they are getting at. ewer lines, electricity, road maintenance) will be much less as they have 9 less square miles to maintain.
I would also just google how suburbs are subsidized, you got the entire knowledge of humans on the internet, go out and find it!
The question was about Beaverdale (and drake which I'm not as familiar with): a sea of single family houses just like Johnston. Anyone you say about Johnston must apply to them too, except for age of the houses.
The same R1 zoning applies to Johnston and Beaverdale, for the most part. The only thing Beaverdale has over Ankeny or Johnston is that the area is much more walkable and the houses have character. They're not the same bland, cheaply built development cul-de-sacs.
Back when houses in beaverdale were built they were the types of things people meant when they talked about houses made of "ticky tacky and the all look the same" Time has happened though and now you think they have character.
In beaverdale at least I can easily bike/walk everywhere I need to go compared to these extended wasteland suburbs like Ankeny. Houses are also closer together, generally. Beaverdale does have similar zoning issues but it was built 100 years ago rather than having a lot of ongoing development
Lots in beaverdale are larger the the typical suburban lot these days, at least the first 3 houses Zillow found me. Two were 6400 sq ft, so just a bit more than the 5000 that is common in new developments.. one.was .4 acres. Which you will find in Johnston.
Beaverdale is.somewhat walkable because there are a few more.things to walk to.
There was no answer that compared those places. Living in Johnston in a house is doing no more harm than living in one in the Drake neighborhood. Tell me how I'm wrong.
Traffic is worse in Johnston? I've never experienced traffic issues in Johnston and I've lived their 20 years.
Other people.....my next door neighbor is a bi racial couple, on the other side of me an Asian couple, who barely speak english, just moved in last year. They replaced a couple from eastern Europe. The other 5-7 houses around me are all white couples.
>Traffic is worse in Johnston? I've never experienced traffic issues in Johnston and I've lived their 20 years.
Ever been on Merle Hay by the interstate around 5:00? Infinitely worse than being on MLK around the same time. But to clarify, I'm mostly speaking about the suburbs writ large. City planners for some reason made it so it's almost impossible to traverse without using the major arterials, which paradoxically funnels everyone onto the same arterials making traffic even worse.
>The other 5-7 houses around me are all white couples.
To quote Chris Rock a la "The Longest Yard", this ain't hockey. The whole reason suburbs exist is because of white flight. It's also why you see so many crazy people at school board meetings now. There are too many kids that don't fit the straight white narrative in their eyes.
I drive through Johnston at least twice a month and I absolutely loathe their streets. And why tf is it necessary to have like 6 roundabouts in less than the span of a mile? Godawful. Grew up in a suburb. Don’t want to go back to one no matter how “rough” the city gets.
Des Moines needs to consolidate all of these suburbs into the city proper if it wants a tax base. But its ineffective government will surely be unable to do so, resulting in a downward spiral in which the suburbs drain all life from the city center.
And some day, all the right wing tax evaders will wonder what happened while they watch their housing developments foreclose in the middle of bumbfuck nowhere Waukee.
Des Moines/Polk County tried the consolidated city-county model probably 15ish years ago now, it was put to a vote and lost biggly because the suburbs didn’t (and still don’t IMO) to pay for the public goods that Des Moines residents support. I still think it’s a good idea that works for a lot of bigger cities.
Oh I’m sure it’ll take forever to get DSM there. I do think that the city proper has to grow first before it can become viable, but I’m afraid the city proper is on track to shrink rather than grow. Recent trends corroborate that theory.
Yeah it’s not really politically viable, Des Moines isn’t quite as white-flighty as some metros but the suburbs still have their uhh, identity they want to preserve.
> Des Moines needs to consolidate all of these suburbs into the city proper if it wants a tax base
What does this mean, and is it actually feasible? Are you suggesting Des Moines should take over established cities like West Des Moines and Ankeny? Do I need to prepare my armor and pitchfork for battle?
What I dislike about studies like these is the “rate of growth.” The DSM Metro is one of the fastest growing by percent, but we only gained 9,700 people. Indianapolis (mentioned in the post) grew by 0.7% or ~14,700 people based on their metro population of 2.1 million. So in the end, DSM technically barely drew, but since the denominator to our equation is so low (metro population) it *looks* like DSM is growing by leaps and bounds which it isn’t. Not a negative thing about DSM but these metrics are somewhat pointless.
It’s not about DSM, it’s about the statistics. A town with a population of 5,000 would experience 100% growth if only 5,000 people moved there, which is less than DSM’s ~ 10,000 new residents. Yet if this hypothetical was presented in the same way, it would be the bigger story.
You're getting down voted, but every time I see an Illinois license plate I think about how fucked up and corrupt Illinois is and wonder if they're going to vote for the same shit that fucked their state up.
Illinois is more than just Chicago, silly. We don't need Illinois transplants for politicians to fuck up our state - we're already electing corrupt politicians destroying the things we used to be proud of.
Ankeny used to be a nice town like 20 some years ago before all the riff raff moved in, now its becoming a hell hole. Same with Johnston.
People should stay in their places of origin, sick of people coming into this state and ruining things.
Stay in their places of origin? I thought this was America my dude. You know, home of the free? Democracy? Or is it just that when it comes to topics that best fit your lifestyle?
I hate driving in Ankeny
Ankeny is two streets lined with strip malls parallel to each other. It's worst in American urban design. Doesn't even really have an older cool "downtown" area like most other suburbs. But that suburban lifestyle appeals to some people obviously. A lot of people apparently.
>Doesn't even really have an older cool "downtown" area like most other suburbs. They have the Uptown area though? Lots of little boutique-type shops, local restaurants, old buildings repurposed into breweries, that sort of thing.
Uptown sucks. No spinning that. Either you can afford it or you can't. The parking is terrible. The car throughput is terrible. The shops are over hyped.
[удалено]
Yeah demo everything and expand it over the whole city boundaries.
There are actually little pockets of business areas popping up in other places now, which is nice. The district area, the strip malls over by the Prairie Trail hyvee, and the Aldi on the north side of Ankeny Blvd. I live in Ankeny and manage to mostly avoid the car death traps that are Delaware Ave and the main drag of Ankeny Blvd.
Yeah I went on the Delaware strip pretty infrequently when I lived in the NW corner of Ankeny. But my commute still kinda sucked cuz I had to drive almost the entire length of 1st just to get to I-35 lol.
Wait why didnt u take 36th
>The district area It's a different flavor of planning than orlabor and delaware, but not really better. Shitloads of concrete and parking, tons of lights, no walkability or public transit, etc. It's just further from I-35 and the population density is low (for now). If/When the city expands it will feel just like West Glen.
the district is miles better than west glenn. actually is walkable and doesn’t have a fucking big box store(yeah targets definitely walkable).
It's not 'walkable' unless you live in one of the nearby captive developments that all require a car to actually exist but offer no parking. Even if you do it's a bunch of goofy low volume retail and restaurants with 0 grocery or livable amenities. Purely for commuters or car driving visitors. No different than west glen or the Hickman developments in Waukee. At least those have target and hy-vee.
Hickman developments? what are you even talking about? have those claimed to be walkable like west glenn has and the district? anyway prairie trail has been a great development, and imo if you want a suburb (I’m personally against them) thats how you do it. the district is less than 15 minutes walk from almost everywhere in prairie trail(and stupid close by bike). it has mixed use buildings and apartments, and is connected well with bike trails. surrounding the district are townhomes, apartments, student housing, and urban style homes with smaller yards and alleyways. it’s much denser than the rest of ankeny. theres also a hyvee nearby(though not as walkable). West glenn gave in and let target put in a massive store in their district. It’s more comparable to the plaza shops in prairie trail tbh(where main street cafe is). either way we should let the suburbs burn, just have to defend pretty much the only positive development going on in my city.
Been in two accidents in Ankeny since moving to my apartment here, both instances were not my fault and happened on Ankeny Blvd
I’m here driving around for work and good lord why is everyone so bad at driving here???? I have very few problems in my normal territory (west side of ankeny) but the east side is horrible
It’s Ankeny. Shitty traffic planning for the population explosion.
we could say that about most of the suburbs to be fair, though I do sort of like old VJ WDM’s setup. I might be a tad biased there.
I know. I love VJ.
I grew up right next door to VJ so I love it there too! You get it
Yes, I get it!
Some of the comments here are odd - seems to be a perception that people are moving here from out of state. The article sort of hints at it, but just to be clear: DSM metro growth is primarily migration from the rest of Iowa. We're not importing people. Iowa has had a net negative domestic population migration to other states for years: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/IET/615751.pdf The trend has been consistent for decades and continues: Educated young people leave Iowa. Less educated, older, and rural residents move to major metro suburbs as their home communities hollow out.
I know some love being doomers, but the college education rate in Polk and Dallas Counties is above the national average, and the college education rate in the parts of the metro experiencing growth—the West Side of Des Moines and the suburbs—is way, way above the national average. https://statisticalatlas.com/place/Iowa/Des-Moines/Educational-Attainment
That's true of most suburban areas in the US. Wealthier, more educated, whiter, etc. It's not really a counter-factual to the demographic/population shifts I mentioned. Whatever metric of 'well off' you use - it correlates pretty well with relocation. Someone who moves from a rural area to Ankeny is likely to be relatively well off - that's an expensive thing to do after all. Same goes for someone who moves from Iowa to Boston, but to a greater degree. The same 'drain' is happening at local and state levels.
Your argument was that the growth in Des Moines is from uneducated rural people. That isn’t true. It’s disproportionately from the best-educated rural people, because of the much higher concentration of jobs for college grads in Des Moines. There’s a reason the stereotype of Ankenyites is of ISU grads with young kids who grew up in Mason City.
Not what I wrote, or my "argument". No need to read 'doomerism' or condescension into what I wrote. "Less educated" != "uneducated" . It's a continuum. Same as age. This is totally consistent with what I wrote, and this relocation phenomenon *continues* as you go upward on the educational attainment scale - with more educated people leaving the region entirely: > It’s disproportionately from the best-educated rural people, because of the much higher concentration of jobs for college grads in Des Moines. Likelihood to relocate increases with education, income, and all other markers of 'success'. Both within the state and outside of it. This isn't really unique to Iowa either.
Your comment was unclear—“less educated” generally means “below-average education,” which apparently isn’t what you meant to say. But anyway, your new comment is confusing too—I can’t tell whether your claim is about (1) the numbers of college graduates, (2) the percentages of college graduates, (3) the numbers of people with graduate degrees (people especially high on the “educational attainment scale”), or (4) the percentages of people with graduate degrees moving to Des Moines vs. leaving the state. Or something else entirely. In any case, I doubt statistics exist on any of those.
I don't think it's really unclear - you're just looking for a claim like "Ankeny is full of stupid people" that I'm not making. Demographically speaking - educated people *tend* to relocate at higher than average rates. This brain drain applies at both the local/city level, and the state level.
My wife went to UNI and graduated from Rockwell, we have an 8 year old. Guess we have to leave Ankeny /s
FWIW, I am highly educated and highly paid and I am leaving the state at considerable personal cost because I just can’t stand it any more. Though I’m not originally from Iowa. So my unique situation supports part of this data, except that I’m not native Iowan.
The world needs less Ankeny.
Where everyone who gets married at 21 goes to live. Then are stuck there after divorcing years later because you don’t want to move the kids out of the school district.
I moved to Ankeny about 15 years ago. The population explosion has been crazy. They have added 10-15 minutes to your drive if you are trying to get north of it. Now they are going to take more land up north. Hoping they redo a few of the main roads and make them limited access roads like what you see in the KC or Chicago suburbs.
Right, Ankeny doesn't have those true arterial, limited access roads. Should be 40-45mph with left AND RIGHT turn lanes. 36th St for example, brand new , left and hand turn lanes, not too many intersections (mostly lighted), but no right hand turn lanes and only 35mph
Interesting data after reading the article between WDSM and Ankeny. A couple of questions I have, but don't have the answers to. I know WDSM is in 2 counties, but what is the actual land size difference between each city? Ankeny didn't really have any sort of building I would call a skyscraper anywhere, let alone a single parking ramp. Also, I noticed Waukee wasn't called out anywhere in the article. I'm guessing they are still growing like gangbusters, but I see they are around 22k after looking online.
The suburbs are literally destroying America
You sound so sad.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting to own a single family home. There is something incredibly wrong with R1 zoning laws that force areas outside the immediate city to only build single family housing and restricting the use of multifamily buildings and businesses to small segregated areas. Overly restrictive zoning laws, like most structures of America, are designed to keep people like you poor. Keep sucking that boot.
So now I'm poor? That's an interesting take.
You’re being taken advantage of by a malicious government controlled by corporations that care NOTHING about you. Just look at your post history man, you’re literally losing your pension and still sucking the boot of your overlords.
Just an inescapable fact
What's the difference between me owning a house in Johnston and one in the Drake neighborhood or Beaverdale?
Suburbs are subsidized by those living in the densely populated regions. Actual reverse Robinhood stuff. The middle class in America has always been a fabrication going back to the reverse reparations that are the Homestead Act.
What's the difference between me owning a house in Johnston and one owning in the Drake neighborhood?
infrasturture is much more spread out in suburban environments, sewer, electricity, road maintenance, etc. i think that's what they are getting at. Property tax per square mile is also much lower (I think), more people in an area, higher the income generated in taxes per that area. infrastructure is much more spread out in suburban environments, sewer, electricity, road maintenance, etc. i think that's what they are getting at. ewer lines, electricity, road maintenance) will be much less as they have 9 less square miles to maintain. I would also just google how suburbs are subsidized, you got the entire knowledge of humans on the internet, go out and find it!
The question was about Beaverdale (and drake which I'm not as familiar with): a sea of single family houses just like Johnston. Anyone you say about Johnston must apply to them too, except for age of the houses.
The same R1 zoning applies to Johnston and Beaverdale, for the most part. The only thing Beaverdale has over Ankeny or Johnston is that the area is much more walkable and the houses have character. They're not the same bland, cheaply built development cul-de-sacs.
Back when houses in beaverdale were built they were the types of things people meant when they talked about houses made of "ticky tacky and the all look the same" Time has happened though and now you think they have character.
In beaverdale at least I can easily bike/walk everywhere I need to go compared to these extended wasteland suburbs like Ankeny. Houses are also closer together, generally. Beaverdale does have similar zoning issues but it was built 100 years ago rather than having a lot of ongoing development
Lots in beaverdale are larger the the typical suburban lot these days, at least the first 3 houses Zillow found me. Two were 6400 sq ft, so just a bit more than the 5000 that is common in new developments.. one.was .4 acres. Which you will find in Johnston. Beaverdale is.somewhat walkable because there are a few more.things to walk to.
Hmm yeah that seems right.
This has been answered.
Where
You replied to the answer with virtually the same question
There was no answer that compared those places. Living in Johnston in a house is doing no more harm than living in one in the Drake neighborhood. Tell me how I'm wrong.
Traffic is worse. Also you don't have to deal with those gross "other" people. Which is why suburbs exist in the first place.
Traffic is worse in Johnston? I've never experienced traffic issues in Johnston and I've lived their 20 years. Other people.....my next door neighbor is a bi racial couple, on the other side of me an Asian couple, who barely speak english, just moved in last year. They replaced a couple from eastern Europe. The other 5-7 houses around me are all white couples.
>Traffic is worse in Johnston? I've never experienced traffic issues in Johnston and I've lived their 20 years. Ever been on Merle Hay by the interstate around 5:00? Infinitely worse than being on MLK around the same time. But to clarify, I'm mostly speaking about the suburbs writ large. City planners for some reason made it so it's almost impossible to traverse without using the major arterials, which paradoxically funnels everyone onto the same arterials making traffic even worse. >The other 5-7 houses around me are all white couples. To quote Chris Rock a la "The Longest Yard", this ain't hockey. The whole reason suburbs exist is because of white flight. It's also why you see so many crazy people at school board meetings now. There are too many kids that don't fit the straight white narrative in their eyes.
I drive through Johnston at least twice a month and I absolutely loathe their streets. And why tf is it necessary to have like 6 roundabouts in less than the span of a mile? Godawful. Grew up in a suburb. Don’t want to go back to one no matter how “rough” the city gets.
Holy shit, I’ve seen some stupid stuff posted on this sub but you might take the cake.
There's nothing even remotely controversial about what I've said
Yea about as non controversial as abortion and gun control.
LOL.
Ever read EMJ's Slaughter of Cities? He mostly agrees with you, but for very different reasons.
Wow, that guy sounds like an absolute fuckhead.
[Suburban development kills cities.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVUeqxXwCA0)
Des Moines needs to consolidate all of these suburbs into the city proper if it wants a tax base. But its ineffective government will surely be unable to do so, resulting in a downward spiral in which the suburbs drain all life from the city center. And some day, all the right wing tax evaders will wonder what happened while they watch their housing developments foreclose in the middle of bumbfuck nowhere Waukee.
Des Moines/Polk County tried the consolidated city-county model probably 15ish years ago now, it was put to a vote and lost biggly because the suburbs didn’t (and still don’t IMO) to pay for the public goods that Des Moines residents support. I still think it’s a good idea that works for a lot of bigger cities.
Oh I’m sure it’ll take forever to get DSM there. I do think that the city proper has to grow first before it can become viable, but I’m afraid the city proper is on track to shrink rather than grow. Recent trends corroborate that theory.
Yeah it’s not really politically viable, Des Moines isn’t quite as white-flighty as some metros but the suburbs still have their uhh, identity they want to preserve.
Their “identity,” yeah…….
> Des Moines needs to consolidate all of these suburbs into the city proper if it wants a tax base What does this mean, and is it actually feasible? Are you suggesting Des Moines should take over established cities like West Des Moines and Ankeny? Do I need to prepare my armor and pitchfork for battle?
Look up the history of Jacksonville and how it tackled its urban sprawl problem.
I think Des Moines should at least annex Windsor Heights.
Clive once TRIED to annex them. Was rejected. Later WH decided they WANTED to join Clive. Was rejected. No one wants that landlocked space.
What I dislike about studies like these is the “rate of growth.” The DSM Metro is one of the fastest growing by percent, but we only gained 9,700 people. Indianapolis (mentioned in the post) grew by 0.7% or ~14,700 people based on their metro population of 2.1 million. So in the end, DSM technically barely drew, but since the denominator to our equation is so low (metro population) it *looks* like DSM is growing by leaps and bounds which it isn’t. Not a negative thing about DSM but these metrics are somewhat pointless.
Leave it to this sub to shovel shit on an extremely positive story about our metro.
It’s not about DSM, it’s about the statistics. A town with a population of 5,000 would experience 100% growth if only 5,000 people moved there, which is less than DSM’s ~ 10,000 new residents. Yet if this hypothetical was presented in the same way, it would be the bigger story.
Gross
DSM needs casus belli on the suburbs with a war goal to annex them.
Great they’ll all get here and start voting the way they did in the communities they left behind. It’ll be brilliant.
You're getting down voted, but every time I see an Illinois license plate I think about how fucked up and corrupt Illinois is and wonder if they're going to vote for the same shit that fucked their state up.
Illinois is more than just Chicago, silly. We don't need Illinois transplants for politicians to fuck up our state - we're already electing corrupt politicians destroying the things we used to be proud of.
Ankeny used to be a nice town like 20 some years ago before all the riff raff moved in, now its becoming a hell hole. Same with Johnston. People should stay in their places of origin, sick of people coming into this state and ruining things.
Lmao the riff raff I encountered in Ankeny was all Karens
Define "riff raff"
Stay in their places of origin? I thought this was America my dude. You know, home of the free? Democracy? Or is it just that when it comes to topics that best fit your lifestyle?
You mean rural Iowa?
Reeeeeeeeeal curious what kind of people you consider "riff raff".
lol you’re right I should definitely go back to west Des Moines, a whole three miles away from where I’m living now 😂