2019 Population Estimate U.S. Metropolitan Areas

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by JManc

They are masochists. I've done that stretch several times. It might be different if there's transit involved but still a long haul. They did from where I lived in NH as well into Boston but quality of life is diminished when you're spending that long commuting. I knew people back home in Utica who commuted into Penn Station a few times a week. There are those who are super commuters..but no thanks.

Yeah, I'd never do it but one of my good friends did it for a couple of years.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by pj3000

MSA is a stubborn relic of the past.

It's long past time to retire it as a metric of statistical significance.

They make a lot more sense to me than CSAs, at the very least.

(Aside from a couple weird ones like San Francisco-San Jose or Los Angeles-Riverside being split up into separate metros)

[KevinFromTexas]

Also, don't forget to take your 2020 census, if you haven't already. I just did ours since we got it in the mail recently. You can do it all online at the link below. It took me less than 5 minutes.

https://my2020census.gov/

[JManc]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Yeah, I'd never do it but one of my good friends did it for a couple of years.

I almost had to do it; Austin to Houston. And still may have to since Houston's economy is on the brink between the virus and teetering oil prices.

[dubu]

oregon is comming up in the world, the 5 cities here added up is 3,727,018. thats like seattles population 3,979,845. most people are like its all forest here.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Not true.

Now if you're talking about LA's CSA, then yes, it would include all of LA, Orange, Ventura, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, and would lump in those podunk little towns with coastal areas.

You got me on a technicality, congratulations you get a cookie. The point is the MSA and CSA are based on counties but thats absurd in western states due to massive counties that dwarf whole states back east.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

They make a lot more sense to me than CSAs, at the very least.

(Aside from a couple weird ones like San Francisco-San Jose or Los Angeles-Riverside being split up into separate metros)

Pj300 is mad his town isnt growing as fast of towns he subjectively views as inferior

[Obadno]

Also I would like to critisize the scale of this map

-2500 to 5000+ ?????

This really gives almost no information

[liat91]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

But a lot of people do commute from PA to Manhattan daily.

It is what it is. I met a couple of people who commute from Florham Park and Fairfield, NJ to Wilkes Barre, PA. They told me there are quite a few people making that trek. Heard of White Plains to Old Lyme, CT and San Jose to Carmel as well.

I think CSA’s may not go far enough. Places like Bakersfield wouldn’t even be growing with giant adjacent metros, spilling over.

[C.]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I would surmise that the biggest losses are probably in the in-between zones or secondary ring of suburbs. Areas mostly developed from the 50s to the 70s.

The outermost ring (usually exurban in character) seems to be growing in most any urban area anywhere.

And of course as you say the innermost areas have undergone a renaissance.

This is factually incorrect for the NYC metro area.

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by BG918

It's definitely more pronounced in the western states due to the large county size. In Colorado, even within the Denver MSA, you have huge counties that have urban portions adjacent to Denver but also little towns way out on the eastern Plains next to the Wyoming and Nebraska state lines (like Weld County). These towns are a world apart from Denver but are included in the MSA.

Yeah but those rural areas have almost no population. In the mean time, Boulder is NOT included in Denver's MSA - nor are many of Denver's bonafide suburbs (Louisville, Lafayette, Superior) because they happen to be in Boulder County. Metro Denver's actual population is somewhere between the MSA and CSA. Probably around 3.2 million.

The problem with MSA's is they split certain metropolitan areas into pieces based upon commuting patterns. The problem with CSA's is they combine distinctly separate metropolitan areas based upon commuting patterns. The problem with them both is they split everything up by county - which is totally arbitrary and doesn't reflect reality.

[RumbleFish]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

(Aside from a couple weird ones like San Francisco-San Jose or Los Angeles-Riverside being split up into separate metros)

Splitting up the Bay area has always annoyed me. It is clearly one metro area and should be at least be in the top 5 or 6 metros. Maybe even as high as number 4.

Personally whether looking at 100's of aerial photographs of these cities or visiting, the list never seems to be exactly right with the exception of the top 3.

[chris08876]

Hopefully the 2020 Census resolves some of those NY Metro figures. NYC is seeing such a loss.

Elusive residents need to fill it out as well. I wish they would make it mandatory for all to contribute in the census. NY always gets under counted and I'm not buying its latest 2019 estimate either.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by ABQalex

Population estimates of the top 100 MSAs as of July 1, 2019:


4. Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX, 7,573,136

5. Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX, 7,066,141


[...]

Incredible figures. Although you guys down in Texas must be feeling that traffic pain compared to 5 years ago. Glad to see great figures for Dallas.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I would surmise that the biggest losses are probably in the in-between zones or secondary ring of suburbs. Areas mostly developed from the 50s to the 70s.

The outermost ring (usually exurban in character) seems to be growing in most any urban area anywhere.

And of course as you say the innermost areas have undergone a renaissance.

Agreed, What was once known in urban planning circles as "The Donut" has become "The Dartboard"...……...rising inner city populations surrounded by declining post-war suburbs surrounded by booming new outer suburbs/exurbs. It's a common pattern now. Even fast growing cities are experiencing population decline in post-war suburbs.

In cities like NY & LA, it's not that people are "fleeing" in great numbers but rather due to relatively modest growth levels, the boom in the exurbs and downtown populations are simply not enough to offset the decline in the post-war suburbs.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

In cities like NY & LA, it's not that people are "fleeing" in great numbers but rather due to relatively modest growth levels, the boom in the exurbs and downtown populations are simply not enough to offset the decline in the post-war suburbs.

NY's exurbs have been stagnant for at least 20 years. They generally don't allow new housing, family sizes are shrinking, and the limited newer construction is increasingly for weekenders, so their populations are dropping. Exurban school districts already have a demographic crisis, which will worsen.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Crawford

NY's exurbs have been stagnant for at least 20 years. They generally don't allow new housing, family sizes are shrinking, and the limited newer construction is increasingly for weekenders, so their populations are dropping. Exurban school districts already have a demographic crisis, which will worsen.

You sorta replied to your own point, though. By virtue of their zoning and layout/structure, these areas can't really grow much to begin with.

Being stagnant or slightly declining generally means they're doing fine as around the biggest cities, they tend be maxed out or built it and opportunities to redevelop with more density are very limited.

They're in a kind of sweet spot in that lots of younger empty nest retirees will choose to live there as they can access the city within an hour (generally) when they want to, but they don't have to make the daily commuter grind five days a week.

Really rich people who can pick and choose when they go into the city also like these places.

It's not at all the same as the decline of many inner suburban ring areas with lower end 50s-60s-70s housing sitting next to wide boulevards with crappy Price Chopper, Ames and Burlington Coat Factory stores surrounded by acres of cracked and potholed pavement and rusty chain-link fencing.

[C.]

Originally Posted by Acajack

You sorta replied to your own point, though. By virtue of their zoning and layout/structure, these areas can't really grow much to begin with.

Being stagnant or slightly declining generally means they're doing fine as around the biggest cities, they tend be maxed out or built it and opportunities to redevelop with more density are very limited.

They're in a kind of sweet spot in that lots of younger empty nest retirees will choose to live there as they can access the city within an hour (generally) when they want to, but they don't have to make the daily commuter grind five days a week.

Really rich people who can pick and choose when they go into the city also like these places.

It's not at all the same as the decline of many inner suburban ring areas with lower end 50s-60s-70s housing sitting next to wide boulevards with crappy Price Chopper, Ames and Burlington Coat Factory stores surrounded by acres of cracked and potholed pavement and rusty chain-link fencing.

You really don't understand the NYC metro area, do you? Nassau County, areas north of NYC, and the New Jersey side of the metro area all have vastly different demographics and growth trends. Most of the counties in the metro area with a stagnate and declining population also have an increasing poverty rate.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Acajack

You sorta replied to your own point, though. By virtue of their zoning and layout/structure, these areas can't really grow much to begin with.

Being stagnant or slightly declining generally means they're doing fine as around the biggest cities, they tend be maxed out or built it and opportunities to redevelop with more density are very limited.

They're in a kind of sweet spot in that lots of younger empty nest retirees will choose to live there as they can access the city within an hour (generally) when they want to, but they don't have to make the daily commuter grind five days a week.

Really rich people who can pick and choose when they go into the city also like these places.

It's not at all the same as the decline of many inner suburban ring areas with lower end 50s-60s-70s housing sitting next to wide boulevards with crappy Price Chopper, Ames and Burlington Coat Factory stores surrounded by acres of cracked and potholed pavement and rusty chain-link fencing.

The NYC area doesn't follow this pattern. The exurban areas have the worst population/economic trends. The inner suburban ring is faring much better than the outer fringe. Westchester is doing better than Fairfield, which is doing better than the inland CT counties, Nassau is doing better than Suffolk, Hudson/Bergen/Essex/Union are faring better than the outer Jersey counties, etc.

There are some metros in the U.S. that follow your pattern. Detroit and Cleveland definitely follow this pattern.

[Acajack]

Counties are often fairly arbitrary definitions anyway.

These places are both in Nassau County:

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7759...7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6236...7i16384!8i8192

Both likely have stagnant or declining populations. The poverty situation is quite different though.