Biggest Urban Growth Is in South and West

[Jularc]

Biggest Urban Growth Is in South and West


By SAM ROBERTS
Published: June 28, 2007

Newark, for four decades a symbol of America’s urban decay, is growing faster than any major city in the Northeast, according to census figures released yesterday.

Newark’s population, which had been declining for 50 years, has increased 3.3 percent since 2000, including a 0.5 percent increase from 2005 to 2006. The city’s population now stands at 281,402.

According to figures from the Census Bureau, the biggest population growth nationwide occurred in urban hubs in the South and the West — now home to 7 of the 10 most populous cities — and especially in the metropolitan suburbs of those regions.

Phoenix, with a population of 1.5 million, officially edged out Philadelphia to become the nation’s fifth most-populous city, after New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Houston.

Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Rochester and other cities in the Rust Belt and upstate New York recorded population losses of more than 5 percent since 2000. But, except for Cleveland, these older cities recorded smaller losses since 2005, suggesting that their population declines may have been stanched. Columbus, Ohio, and Indianapolis gained population in the latest one-year period.

New York, the nation’s largest city, with more than 8.2 million people, recorded virtually no growth since 2005. But city officials said that the population was undercounted and that they would challenge the census figures, as they have done successfully in recent years.

“The July 1, 2006, number will likely be higher than it is now, indicating continued growth,” said Joseph J. Salvo, director of the City Planning Department’s population division.

Among cities of 100,000 or more, North Las Vegas, a suburb with a population of 197,567, recorded the fastest growth rate. It ballooned by 11.9 percent from 2005 to 2006.

Three cities in metropolitan Dallas — McKinney (which nearly doubled in population since 2000), Grand Prairie and Denton — also ranked in the top 10 fastest-growing cities of 100,000 or more. Two cities in metropolitan Phoenix and two cities in Florida were also in the top 10, along with one city in North Carolina and one in California.

While Phoenix grew more than any other city, adding 43,000 residents since 2005, five Texas cities (San Antonio, Fort Worth, Houston, Austin and Dallas) were also among the top numerical gainers.

The hurricane-ravaged New Orleans lost 51 percent of its population from July 1, 2005, to July 1, 2006.

William H. Frey, a demographer with the Brookings Institution, a nonpartisan research group in Washington, said he had detected a surge of small city growth, especially in the West. Of the 25 cities in the South and the West with populations over 500,000, he said, all but three showed gains this decade.

“Small Western cities, with populations below 250,000, grew by 11 percent in the first six years in this decade, substantially more than larger cities in the region,” Mr. Frey said.

Boston showed annual population gains from 2002 to 2005 but registered a 1 percent loss since 2005.

Since 2000, only two cities outside the South and the West — Joliet, Ill., and Olathe, Kan. — were among the 25 fastest-growing in the nation.

The gains in the West and the South demonstrate how the nation’s population has shifted over a century. Only 3 of the 10 most populous cities in 1910 — New York, Chicago and Philadelphia — remain on the latest list of the top 10. Three of the latest top 10 — Phoenix; San Jose, Calif.; and San Diego — were not even among the 100 most populous in 1910.


Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/28/us/28census.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

[ATXboom]

Census Bureau Announces Most Populous Cities
Phoenix has become the nation’s fifth most populous city, according to U.S. Census Bureau population estimates released today. As of July 1, 2006, this desert metropolis had a population of 1.5 million.

New York continued to be the nation’s most populous city, with 8.2 million residents. This was more than twice the population of Los Angeles, which ranked second at 3.8 million. (See Table 1 Excel | PDF.)

The estimates reveal that Phoenix moved into fifth place ahead of Philadelphia, the latest evidence of a decades-long population shift. Nearly a century ago, in 1910, each of the 10 most populous cities was within roughly 500 miles of the Canadian border. The 2006 estimates show that seven of the top 10 — and three of the top five — are in states that border Mexico.

Only three of the top 10 from 1910 remained on the list in 2006: New York, Chicago and Philadelphia. Conversely, three of the current top 10 cities (Phoenix; San Jose, Calif.; and San Diego) were not even among the 100 most populous in 1910, while three more (Dallas, Houston and San Antonio) had populations of less than 100,000. (See fact sheet. [PDF])

The estimates also reveal that many of the nation’s fastest-growing cities are suburbs. North Las Vegas, Nev., a suburb of Las Vegas, had the nation’s fastest growth rate among large cities (100,000 or more population) between July 1, 2005, and July 1, 2006. North Las Vegas’ population increased 11.9 percent during the period, to 197,567. It was joined on the list of the 10 fastest-growing cities by three in the Dallas metro area: McKinney (ranking second), Grand Prairie (sixth) and Denton (ninth). In the same vicinity, Fort Worth just missed the list, ranking 11th.

Florida and Arizona each had two cities among the 10 fastest growing: Port St. Lucie (third) and Cape Coral (fourth) in Florida; and Gilbert (fifth) and Peoria (seventh) in Arizona, both near Phoenix. North Carolina (Cary, near Raleigh) and California (Lancaster, near Los Angeles) each contributed one city to the list. (See Table 2 Excel | PDF.) California had seven cities among the 25 fastest growing, leading all states.

Phoenix had the largest population increase of any city between 2005 and 2006, adding more than 43,000 residents to reach 1.5 million. However, Texas dominated the list of the 10 highest numerical gainers, with San Antonio, Fort Worth, Houston, Austin and Dallas each making the top 10. North Las Vegas; Miami; Charlotte, N.C.; and San Jose, Calif., rounded out the list of the 10 biggest numerical gainers. (See Table 3 Excel | PDF.) Overall, eight Texas cities were among the 25 biggest numerical gainers to lead all states.

New Orleans had by far the largest population loss among all cities with populations of at least 100,000 people. The city lost slightly more than half of its pre-Hurricane Katrina population. It fell from 452,170 on July 1, 2005, to 223,388 one year later — a loss of 50.6 percent. To put the size of this loss into perspective, Hialeah, Fla., which experienced the second-highest rate of loss over the period, saw its population decline by 1.6 percent.
(See Table 4 Excel | PDF.)

For more information about the geographic areas for which the Census Bureau produces population estimates, see <http://www.census.gov/popest/geographic>.

-X-

These estimates are based on Census 2000 population counts — updated using information on building permits and other estimates of change.

[Jularc]

Newark Rises, but Not Like Phoenix


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/06/28/nyregion/newark3.span_cityroom.jpg


By Sam Roberts
June 28, 2007

Newark, for four decades America’s poster child for urban decay, is growing faster than any major city in the Northeast, according to census figures released this morning. Its population, which has been declining for 50 years, increased by 3.3 percent since 2000, including 0.5 percent in the fiscal year ending last July 1.

Newark showed the highest growth from 2000 to 2006 of all northeastern cities with a population above 250,000, resisting apparent slowdowns in Stamford, Conn., and other nearby New York suburbs. The Census Bureau estimates that Newark’s population grew to 281,402 from 272,885.

With more than 8.2 million people — twice as big as Los Angeles, which ranks second — New York showed virtually no growth since 2005. But New York officials insist that the city’s population was undercounted and said that they would challenge the Census figures — as they have done successfully in recent years.

“The July 1, 2006, number will likely be higher than it is now, indicating continued growth,” said Joseph J. Salvo, director of the City Planning Department’s population division.

But the biggest demographic news of the day is this: Phoenix, with a population of 1.5 million, has finally overtaken Philadelphia as the nation’s fifth most populous city.

The new ranking means that among the nation’s 10 largest cities, only three — New York (No. 1), Chicago (No. 3) and Philadelphia (No. 6) — are outside the Sunbelt. Three of the top 10 — Los Angeles (No. 2), San Diego (No. 8) and San Jose (No. 10) — are in California, and three — Houston (No. 4), San Antonio (No. 7) and Dallas (No. 9) — are in Texas.

The Census Bureau, which calls the new ranking the “latest evidence of a decades-long population shift,” notes:

Nearly a century ago, in 1910, each of the 10 most populous cities was within roughly 500 miles of the Canadian border. The 2006 estimates show that seven of the top 10 — and three of the top five — are in states that border Mexico.


Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/28/newark-rises-but-not-like-phoenix/)

[JackStraw]

For the love of God people, Phoenix is not as big as numbers say it is. It is not even that large of a city. One thing to consider. Bostons city limits are a measly 48 sq miles, Pittsburgh's a small 55 square miles. If you made these two cities have the same land area as an average sun belt city or western town they would be well over a million a peice. Cities like Jacksonville are 900 sq miles with a popluation around 900,000. People look at population and see numbers, but they don't tell how big a city really is.

[Evergrey]

For the love of God people, Phoenix is not as big as numbers say it is. It is not even that large of a city. One thing to consider. Bostons city limits are a measly 48 sq miles, Pittsburgh's a small 55 square miles. If you made these two cities have the same land area as an average sun belt city or western town they would be well over a million a peice. Cities like Jacksonville are 900 sq miles with a popluation around 900,000. People look at population and see numbers, but they don't tell how big a city really is.

You're correct. The City population statistics that are released today are the most useless of the bunch... at least when it comes to comparing cities across the country. Municipal boundaries are largely arbitrary and vary widely from state to state and even within states sometimes. It is meaningless to try to draw conclusions by comparing an Indianapolis with a Cincinnati, for example. Metropolitan Areas and Urban Areas, while imperfect, are much more meaningful and capture the reality of a region that transcends municipal boundaries.

[ATXboom]

Agree... tracking city numbers is meaningless except for local government/tax purposes.

For our purposes related to growth and economy the only relavent numbers are Metro populations and downtown populations for evidence of new urbanism growth.

The population of Detroit city limits and Plano,TX city limits are meaningless.

[Jularc]

POP. TOP: NYC LARGEST BY FAR


By NEIL GRAVES

June 28, 2007 -- If subway straphangers can't get much elbow room anymore, it's because the city's population is still growing, according to a Census Bureau report released today.

The Big Apple, with 8.21 million residents, is still more than twice as large as the second-largest U.S. city, Los Angeles, at 3.84 million.

Gotham gained 24,337 people more than Los Angeles did since the 2004 headcount, the annual population report said.

Chicago, Houston and Phoenix rounded out the top five.

And the present-day New York dwarfs the town of the millennium year - there are 196,076 more people here than there were in 2000.

The largest growth came between 2000 and 2001, with an increase of about 60,000. Another 40,000 arrived between 2002 and 2003.

But the latest Census estimates seem to indicate that the trend is slowing down, as fewer than 1,000 more residents were counted between July 1, 2005 and July 1, 2006.

Nationally, what may be the biggest surprise is that Phoenix, with a population of 1.5 million, has moved into fifth place, passing Philadelphia.

Phoenix gained 43,000 residents over the past year, making the sun-scorched town smack in the middle of a desert the fastest-growing U.S. city.

The city with the steepest decline was, no surprise, New Orleans. The Crescent City lost slightly more than half of its population after Hurricane Katrina. It nose-dived from 452,170 to 223,388 - a 50.6 percent drop.

Phoenix's rise dramatized America's southwestern migration, with New York, Chicago and Philadelphia the only Eastern and Midwestern cities in the top 10.


Copyright 2007 NYP Holdings, Inc. (http://www.nypost.com/seven/06282007/news/regionalnews/pop__top__nyc_largest_by_far_regionalnews_neil_graves.htm)

[DaveofCali]

^ That article is biased, Los Angeles already topped the 4 million mark.

[Evergrey]

^ That article is biased, Los Angeles already topped the 4 million mark.


2006 Census Estimate (the latest Census Estimate)

Los Angeles 3,849,378

[pwright1]

For the love of God people, Phoenix is not as big as numbers say it is. It is not even that large of a city. One thing to consider. Bostons city limits are a measly 48 sq miles, Pittsburgh's a small 55 square miles. If you made these two cities have the same land area as an average sun belt city or western town they would be well over a million a peice. Cities like Jacksonville are 900 sq miles with a popluation around 900,000. People look at population and see numbers, but they don't tell how big a city really is.

But the thing is they don't have the land area or the population so cities like Pittsburgh and Boston are not that big imo. Yes when you count the suburban areas outside of the city the Boston metropolitan area has more people but when I see city populations I see Phoenix being much larger than Boston. Honestly when I'm in Phoenix it feels large imo. By U.S. standards Phoenix is a large city.

[Jularc]

More articles, with a list...


The fastest growing U.S. cities
From the Empire State to the Lone Star State - the cities that are growing the most.


By Les Christie, CNNMoney.com staff writer
June 28 2007: 12:36 PM EDT

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- What's the fastest-growing American city with more than half a million people?

If you guessed Ft. Worth, you are correct. Dallas' next-door neighbor added more than 20 percent to its population from July 2000 through July 2006, according to the latest estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau.

But if you answered New York, you were also correct. With 205,750 new citizens, Gotham added more residents than any city in the United States since 2000. That's enough new New Yorkers to fill a city the size of Boise, Idaho, bringing its total number to 8,214,826 - an all-time high.


New Yorkers are top transit users


New York is one of the few major old industrial towns that have not experienced a substantial shrinking in the number of its core residents. The top 10 cities of a hundred years ago would have included places like Baltimore (now at 631,366, the 19th largest), Boston ( 590,763, 22nd), Cleveland (444,313, 40th) and St Louis (347,181, 52nd).

Many of the older cities are only losing population from their core areas while the suburbs around them are still growing. But even taking into account total metro-area growth, the newer sunbelt cities are growing at a faster rate than older, industrial towns.

Each of the 10 biggest cities once lay within 500 miles of the Canadian border. Now, seven of the top 10 are sun-belt cities, closer to Chihuahua than Toronto.

Some of the nation's biggest cities today were mere blips on the radar at the turn of 20th-century America. Los Angeles, the nation's second largest city with 3,849,378 people, had a population of just over 100,000 in 1900.

Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, San Diego and San Jose, Calif. all had fewer than 100,000.

Phoenix, which 100 years ago was not even among the 100 most populous cities, grew by more than 40,000 residents during the 12 months ended July 1, 2006. Phoenix passed Philadelphia, which has lost about 70,000 residents during the 2000s, to become the fifth biggest American city.

The biggest loser of the 2000s, outside of New Orleans, where hurricane-related losses drove more than half the city's residents away, has been Detroit. Motown endured a net loss of 80,000 people during the 2000s, leaving the population at less than half of its 1950s heyday.

Cleveland (- 6.9 percent), Pittsburgh (-6.5 percent) and Buffalo (-5.7 percent) also continued to show big losses since 2000.


Americans still love to drive to work


The fastest growing of any of the cities of more than 50,000 population was McKinney, Texas, which lies in the path of the outward expansion of Dallas. It has nearly doubled in size since 2000 to 107,530.

Other growth spurts occurred in Gilbert, Arizona (73.9 percent to 191,517), North Las Vegas (71.1 percent to 197,567) and Port St Lucie, Florida (61.9 percent to 143,868).

North Las Vegas led the nation in growth rate for the 12 months ended July 1, 2006. Its population increased 11.9 percent. Second was McKinney at 11.1 percent and Port St. Lucie was third at 9.9 percent.

Twelve-month numerical leaders included Phoenix (43,192), San Antonio (33,084) and Ft. Worth (30,202).


Top 10 fastest growing large cities


City (pop. over 500,000) / State / Population / Percent growth

Ft. Worth / TX / 653,320 / 4.8%

Phoenix / AZ / 1,512,986 / 2.9%

Austin / TX / 709,893 / 2.7%

San Antonio / TX / 1,296,682 / 2.6%

Charlotte / NC / 630,478 / 2.3%

Albuquerque / NM / 504,949 / 2.1%

El Paso / TX / 609,415 / 1.9%

San Jose / CA / 929,936 / 1.6%

Denver / CO / 566,974 / 1.5%

Jacksonville / FL / 794,555 / 1.5%


© 2007 Cable News Network LP, LLLP. (http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/27/real_estate/fastest_growing_cities/index.htm?postversion=2007062812)

[Jularc]

Each of the 10 biggest cities once lay within 500 miles of the Canadian border. Now, seven of the top 10 are sun-belt cities, closer to Chihuahua than Toronto.

I am sure alot of the growing cities are attracting alot of people from south of the border. Like Mexicans and Central Americans. They move north aswell but not in bigger numbers. It is just too far for most of them.

[Evergrey]

But the thing is they don't have the land area or the population so cities like Pittsburgh and Boston are not that big imo. Yes when you count the suburban areas outside of the city the Boston metropolitan area has more people but when I see city populations I see Phoenix being much larger than Boston. Honestly when I'm in Phoenix it feels large imo. By U.S. standards Phoenix is a large city.

I guess it depends on what your personal perception of "big city" is...

This feels a lot more big city to me...
http://metroscenes.com/boston/images/2007/boston_metroscenes3.2007_06.jpg
credit: flash

than this...
http://www.nitnelav.com/DowntownMarch23/1FDT9930.jpg
HX_Guy

In addition, the urban environment of Boston or Pittsburgh isn't confined by their 50 sq. mile municipal borders... in contrast... "urban Phoenix" doesn't begin to fill up the 515 sq. miles of its municipal boundaries

[Quixote]

2006 Census Estimate (the latest Census Estimate)

Los Angeles 3,849,378

L.A. Climbs Past 4 million...

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-population2may02,1,7138034,full.story

...and it ain't due to more sprawl. ;)

[Evergrey]

L.A. Climbs Past 4 million...

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-population2may02,1,7138034,full.story

...and it ain't due to more sprawl. ;)

That is a study done by the California Dept. of Finance. We're talking about U.S. Census Bureau estimates in this thread. Whether the California Dept. of Finance's number is more or less accurate than the Census Bureau's estimate is irrelevant. For the purposes of this discussion, which is devoted to U.S. Census Bureau estimates, Los Angeles has a population of 3.84 million. This number was quoted in the previous article from the NY Post because it is generated by the organization that is widely considered to be the foremost experts in compiling and analyzing population data as opposed to an anti-LA bias as stated by DaveinCali.

[Crawford]

L.A. Climbs Past 4 million...

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-population2may02,1,7138034,full.story

...and it ain't due to more sprawl. ;)

Apples to oranges.

You can't compare Census estimates with CA State estimates. You can only compare LA Census data with other cities' Census data. Otherwise, who knows what populations you would come up with if CA State estimate methodology were applied to other cities?

[plinko]

For the love of God people, Phoenix is not as big as numbers say it is. It is not even that large of a city. One thing to consider. Bostons city limits are a measly 48 sq miles, Pittsburgh's a small 55 square miles. If you made these two cities have the same land area as an average sun belt city or western town they would be well over a million a peice. Cities like Jacksonville are 900 sq miles with a popluation around 900,000. People look at population and see numbers, but they don't tell how big a city really is.

Who couldn't see this coming today?

Yes, municipal boundaries are arbitrary, but Phoenix is by all measures a large US city. 4 million people within 30 miles of downtown Phoenix. That's larger than all but a dozen or so urban areas in this country.

A discussion about urbanism or built density is something else entirely.

But then again...Western cities are only growing due to annexation right?

[Crawford]

But then again...Western cities are only growing due to annexation right?


With few exceptions, this is correct.

[Quixote]

You want to use 2005 estimates from the US Census Bureau? Okay then.

So that means the population figure for New York City that was presented in the article isn't accurate. According to the US Census Bureau, NYC had a 2005 population of 8,143,197, not 8.21 million (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFPopulation?_event=ChangeGeoContext&geo_id=16000US3651000&_geoContext=01000US%7C04000US06%7C16000US0644000&_street=&_county=New+York&_cityTown=New+York&_state=04000US36&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=geoSelect&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010&_submenuId=population_0&ds_name=null&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null&reg=null%3Anull&_keyword=&_industry=). Though it appears that the article reported Los Angeles' 2005 population accurately at approximately 3.44 million (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFPopulation?_event=ChangeGeoContext&geo_id=16000US0644000&_geoContext=01000US%7C04000US36%7C16000US3651000&_street=&_county=Los+Angeles&_cityTown=Los+Angeles&_state=04000US06&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=geoSelect&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010&_submenuId=population_0&ds_name=null&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null&reg=null%3Anull&_keyword=&_industry=).

[vertex]

I guess it depends on what your personal perception of "big city" is...

This feels a lot more big city to me...
http://metroscenes.com/boston/images/2007/boston_metroscenes3.2007_06.jpg
credit: flash

than this...
http://www.nitnelav.com/DowntownMarch23/1FDT9930.jpg
HX_Guy

In addition, the urban environment of Boston or Pittsburgh isn't confined by their 50 sq. mile municipal borders... in contrast... "urban Phoenix" doesn't begin to fill up the 515 sq. miles of its municipal boundaries

Right Evergray, nothing but 515 sq. miles of that in Phoenix. :haha:

Fortunately for us, Phoenix is much bigger and more interesting than you can imagine. You make a valid point about Phoenix not yet reaching its urban boundary, just try choosing a more representative pic.

BTW, being originally from Boston, it's interesting that you choose a North End shot for your comparison pic. Its worth mentioning that the degree of density for this particular neighborhood doesn't extend beyond the freeway,the harbor, or all of the development that replaced the adjacent neighborhoods wiped out in the name of 'urban renewal'.

[Crawford]

You want to use 2005 estimates from the US Census Bureau? Okay then.

So that means the population figure for New York City that was presented in the article isn't accurate. According to the US Census Bureau, NYC had a 2005 population of 8,143,197, not 8.21 million (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFPopulation?_event=ChangeGeoContext&geo_id=16000US3651000&_geoContext=01000US%7C04000US06%7C16000US0644000&_street=&_county=New+York&_cityTown=New+York&_state=04000US36&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=geoSelect&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010&_submenuId=population_0&ds_name=null&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null&reg=null%3Anull&_keyword=&_industry=). Though it appears that the article reported Los Angeles' 2005 population accurately at approximately 3.44 million (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFPopulation?_event=ChangeGeoContext&geo_id=16000US0644000&_geoContext=01000US%7C04000US36%7C16000US3651000&_street=&_county=Los+Angeles&_cityTown=Los+Angeles&_state=04000US06&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=geoSelect&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010&_submenuId=population_0&ds_name=null&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null&reg=null%3Anull&_keyword=&_industry=).

Actually, the article is correct and your link is wrong. Your link shows the incorrect initial Census estimate, which was successfull challenged and corrected.

NYC has already announced they are challenging the numbers released today, so you will likely see another increase six months from now.

As for LA, I have no idea how they are responding to Census estimates.

[Quixote]

Well since you actually can't present a new and supposedly more accurate census figure for NYC at the moment, we shall use the population figures I provided.

[Jularc]

Explosive Growth Since 2000 in State’s Hasidic Enclaves


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/06/29/nyregion/censuslarge.jpg


By SEWELL CHAN and JO CRAVEN McGINTY
June 29, 2007

Kiryas Joel, an Orthodox Jewish enclave in southern Orange County, grew faster than any other community in New York State from 2000 through 2006, according to census data released yesterday.

Kiryas Joel grew by 51 percent, to 20,071 residents from 13,273, over the six-year period. The village was incorporated in 1977 as an offshoot of the Satmar Hasidic sect in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. It has had an unusually high rate of natural growth, largely because under the community’s religious beliefs, birth control is banned and women tend to marry young and stay in the village.

The Census Bureau provided population estimates for 615 incorporated places in New York State; The New York Times calculated the rate of growth for each community from 2000 through 2006.

Generally, the communities that grew the fastest during that period were small villages. After Kiryas Joel, the next fastest-growing community was New Square, a Skverer Hasidic village in Rockland County, established in 1954; the tiny village of West Hampton Dunes, population 17, in Suffolk County; the village of Maybrook, in Orange County; and the village of Old Westbury, in Nassau County.

Kiryas Joel is named after Joel Teitelbaum, the Satmar rebbe who, during the Holocaust, fled with members of the community from their historic home in what is now Romania and established a new base in Brooklyn.

“They want to create in the New World a replica of the Old World he and his followers had lost,” said Jonathan D. Sarna, a professor of American Jewish history at Brandeis University. “This is what I call a kind of spiritual revenge: ‘Hitler and the Nazis wanted to destroy us, and we will long outlive them, as we have long outlived so many other enemies.’ ”

The community has not only maintained its linguistic and cultural practices, but also fostered “a fierce antimodernism and anti-Zionism,” Dr. Sarna said.

The move upstate occurred in part because of the high cost of living in Brooklyn and because of sectarian and turf conflicts; other Satmar Hasidic Jews remain in Brooklyn.

In absolute terms, New York City had the largest growth of any community in the state, gaining 196,076 residents, or 2 percent, between 2000 and 2006. (The Census Bureau estimates that the city has 8.2 million people, but city officials plan to protest that estimate, as they have in the past, saying it is too low.)

In raw terms, Kiryas Joel, with a gain of 6,798 residents, was second to New York City in growth. White Plains, in Westchester County, which grew by 3,739 residents, or 7 percent, was third; New Square, with a gain of 2,228 residents, was fourth; and the town of Harrison, with a gain of 2,103 residents, or 9 percent, was fifth.

The state’s population grew by an estimated 1.7 percent, to 19.3 million in 2006 from 19 million in 2000.

But New York’s largest cities generally declined in population over that period. Buffalo, the state’s second-largest city, lost 16,114 residents, or 6 percent of its population. Rochester, the third-largest city, lost 10,352 residents, or 5 percent. Yonkers, the fourth-largest city, grew by 1 percent, or 1,524 residents. Syracuse, the fifth-largest city, lost 5,574 residents, or 4 percent.


Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/nyregion/29census.html)

[L41A]

You're correct. The City population statistics that are released today are the most useless of the bunch... at least when it comes to comparing cities across the country. Municipal boundaries are largely arbitrary and vary widely from state to state and even within states sometimes. It is meaningless to try to draw conclusions by comparing an Indianapolis with a Cincinnati, for example. Metropolitan Areas and Urban Areas, while imperfect, are much more meaningful and capture the reality of a region that transcends municipal boundaries.

I agree with you both. Another thing to consider is how cities are incorporated in different states. In Georgia, it is more difficult for communities to incorporate to become a city than in for example Texas. It is also more difficult for existing Georgia cities to annex areas. Also in Georgia, counties are given powers to provide services, such as police and fire, that a lot of other states may reserve for cities.

[Chicago3rd]

I got to give it to them when they say the city of Phoenix...blah blah blah. But I will not give them the word URBAN. Phoenix is not urban....most sunbelt cities are not urban.

[RocTX]

With few exceptions, this is correct.

I hate to disagree with you, but here are the county growth estimates (http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/009756.html)from 2000-2006. With the exception of one county in Illinois in the top 10, they show the same southwest trend. County boundaries don't change, so this can't be due to annexation.

[dimondpark]

2006 Census Estimate (the latest Census Estimate)

Los Angeles 3,849,378

According to The California State Department of Finance, The population of LA is 4,018,080. The Census perenially undercounts California when they make estimates in the 10-year interval between each census when they actually count.

[Crawford]

According to The California State Department of Finance, The population of LA is 4,018,080. The Census perenially undercounts California when they make estimates in the 10-year interval between each census when they actually count.

Yes, but CA does not estimate the population of all the cities in the country, so if you are going to compare the growth rates of CA cities with the rest of the country, you can only use apples-to-apples Census data.

[dimondpark]

Yes, but CA does not estimate the population of all the cities in the country, so if you are going to compare the growth rates of CA cities with the rest of the country, you can only use apples-to-apples Census data.

Unless in the case of California, I think the Census is wrong-which I do.

[Crawford]

Well since you actually can't present a new and supposedly more accurate census figure for NYC at the moment, we shall use the population figures I provided.

Um, The U.S. Census Bureau isn't a good source?:rolleyes: If the Census is beneath your rigorous standards, here's a related press release:

October 3, 2006

MAYOR BLOOMBERG'S STATEMENT ON CITY'S SUCCESSFUL
CENSUS BUREAU CHALLENGE

New York City's New Population Record Of Over 8.2 Million People Has Been Affirmed

October 3, 2006 – Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg today announced that as a result of a successful challenge developed by the Department of City Planning of the U.S. Census Bureau's population estimates, New York City's July 2005 population has been revised upward by 70,600 persons, climbing to an all-time high of 8,213,839. The Census Bureau reported earlier this year that the City's population had increased 1.7% to 8,143,200 but the City challenged the Census Bureau's estimates for all five boroughs, and in each case, the Bureau accepted the City's higher population estimates. The increase in the City's population underscores the importance of the Administration's plans to stimulate housing construction throughout the City, and emphasizes the Administration's commitment to bring to New York its fair share of resources related to the population count.

"In challenging the Bureau's figures, we based our population estimates on a housing unit-based method – the same method that was used in the successful challenge to the July 2004 estimates – and once again, the method yielded higher numbers than those from the U.S. Census Bureau's population estimates program," said Mayor Bloomberg. "This represents an increase of 206,800 persons since April of 2000, a 2.6 percent change and a jump of 49,100 over last year's population high, or an increase equivalent to the size of the city of Reno, Nevada.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/about/pr100306.shtml

[Crawford]

Unless in the case of California, I think the Census is wrong-which I do.

Well, that's fine and dandy, but what about the other 49 states?

California's U.S. Census estimates are compiled with the exact same formula as the other 49. If LA has 4 million under the CA survey, then who knows what other cities have using the same methodology?

Michigan has estimates too. Would you prefer if each state conducts its own unique, unrelated survey and we then compare the results?

[roadwarrior]

Well, that's fine and dandy, but what about the other 49 states?

California's U.S. Census estimates are compiled with the exact same formula as the other 49. If LA has 4 million under the CA survey, then who knows what other cities have using the same methodology?

California is not the only state to have updated its population with 2006/2007 data. I heard a recent report of the fastest growing metro areas from 2000 to present and they were Atlanta, Dallas, Houston and Phoenix.

[skylife]

Well I sure ain't moving South or West (except I'd consider parts of CA and the NW). Those areas have zero appeal to me.

[dimondpark]

Well, that's fine and dandy, but what about the other 49 states?
What about them. The issue is either the Census is wrong or the State is wrong. The Census needs to dispense with guessing because time after time they've been proven wrong once they actual do their deciannial census.

Michigan has estimates too. Would you prefer if each state conducts its own unique, unrelated survey and we then compare the results?

Actually Yes. I dont need to the federal government guessing when states can do that just fine on their own. The Constitution requires a census every 10 years, not guesses in the interim that come off as official and the end all on the topic. They were off by 400,000 during the 90s when they estimated The Bay Area would have 6.7 Million in 2000. Forgive me if I thumb my nose at their estimates

Heck,
its common for NYC to sue and win everytime the census comes out with numbers. California officials arent as testy on the issue but I think we should follow NYs lead next time around.

[Crawford]

California is not the only state to have updated its population with 2006/2007 data. I heard a recent report of the fastest growing metro areas from 2000 to present and they were Atlanta, Dallas, Houston and Phoenix.

Great, you still haven't answered why different cities should be counted using different methodologies. If you can find one standard, then that's fantastic. Otherwise, you are not making meaningful comparisons.

[roadwarrior]

Great, you still haven't answered why different cities should be counted using different methodologies. If you can find one standard, then that's fantastic. Otherwise, you are not making meaningful comparisons.

No, but combining these with historical and projected growth rates can give you a pretty good estimate.

[RocTX]

Well I sure ain't moving South or West (except I'd consider parts of CA and the NW). Those areas have zero appeal to me.

Well...ok, I'm happy for you.

[Crawford]

I hate to disagree with you, but here are the county growth estimates (http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/009756.html)from 2000-2006. With the exception of one county in Illinois in the top 10, they show the same southwest trend. County boundaries don't change, so this can't be due to annexation.

Your response has no relation to my post. I commented on cities, not counties.

Western cities that show growth have extra developable land from annexation. This vacant land is the source of the city's growth. Whether or not the annexation has occured recently or far in the past is irrelevent. The issue is whether the municipality has signifant tracts of developable land.

[RocTX]

Your response has no relation to my post. I commented on cities, not counties.

Western cities that show growth have extra developable land from annexation. This vacant land is the source of the city's growth. Whether or not the annexation has occured recently or far in the past is irrelevent. The issue is whether the municipality has signifant tracts of developable land.

I beg to differ. It does relate because your premise was that southern and western cities are only posting dramatic growth because of their ability to annex new areas. County data contradicts that premise because the borders of counties are fixed and population growth is still occurring in the south and west and not in the northeastern counties.

This growth is real, so people just ought to accept it. Trying to debate that it's just some trick of annexation or city boundaries is like spitting in the wind. I mean the entire state of Texas posted a 12% growth rate over the same time period which I believe is higher than the Philadelphia metro too. Is the entire state achieving that growth by annexing large and undeveloped areas of Mexico and Oklahoma?

[KB0679]

Well I sure ain't moving South or West (except I'd consider parts of CA and the NW). Those areas have zero appeal to me.

You're already in the South. ;)

[vjhe]

You're already in the South. ;)

:haha:

[TexasBoi]

You're already in the South. ;)
:haha:

[skylife]

:haha:

Um, no. The only people who think DC is "the South" are people who are not from here. In fact, it was selected as a location because it wasn't the North or South.

No offense or anything. I don't know why people get offended that not everybody wants to live in the Sunbelt. It's mostly a climate thing. I could never live anywhere hotter than here. I'd die if I had to live in a f*cking desert or the Deep South. I'd only live in places cooler than here.

[KB0679]

^I was just teasing you. I'm not even getting into the whole "Is DC Northern or Southern" thing, which has been all but beaten to death.

[stranger]

Oh come on, the 100+ degree weather's really not that bad is it? :shrug:

I wouldn't give up Texas for anything, but count me out of anywhere else in the south.... even Oklahoma where I live right now.

And as far as urbanism... Phoenix and other parts of the southwest may not be as dense as Boston but the way the trends are going, it looks like they will be very soon...

[PhillyRising]

Your response has no relation to my post. I commented on cities, not counties.

Western cities that show growth have extra developable land from annexation. This vacant land is the source of the city's growth. Whether or not the annexation has occured recently or far in the past is irrelevent. The issue is whether the municipality has signifant tracts of developable land.

Most older cities already do...they need to knock down all the rot...clear the land and let bid it out for redevelopment. There is plenty of space in Philly to repopulate within it's borders. There is no need to go land grabbing.

[PhillyRising]

Oh come on, the 100+ degree weather's really not that bad is it? :shrug:



It's sucks. It's easier to stay warm than it is to stay cool.

[skylife]

^I was just teasing you. I'm not even getting into the whole "Is DC Northern or Southern" thing, which has been all but beaten to death.

Oh, I know. The South is nice but I just really can't stand hot weather. This is actually more than I can stand here. I can't believe people live where it's regularly 115 and stuff in the SW. And nobody start that "dry heat" stuff. 115 is insanely hot!

[KB0679]

Oh, I know. The South is nice but I just really can't stand hot weather. This is actually more than I can stand here. I can't believe people live where it's regularly 115 and stuff in the SW. And nobody start that "dry heat" stuff. 115 is insanely hot!

I hear you, but you've got to admit, the humidity in DC is just plain stifling in the summer time, not unlike many cities found further south. I actually couldn't believe it when I was there in July of last year. The difference there and in the Charlotte area where I live was practically nil.

But you've also got to keep in mind that there are cities in/near the mountains in the South as well, which are relatively cooler on average.

[TexasBoi]

^^ Tell me about it. It was 76 today in the DC area but the humidity was unbearable. Soon as I walked out, I start sweating. But I will say that 90 degrees and dry weather feels much better than 80 degrees with 90% humidity. Actually, I would go and say it's pleasant. But I was raised in Central Texas where the summer starts off humid but then the heat becomes dry for the majority of the season. But I'm beginning to despise Summer, though. Hurry up September and start cooling off.

[Quixote]

Um, The U.S. Census Bureau isn't a good source?:rolleyes: If the Census is beneath your rigorous standards, here's a related press release:

And the US Census Bureau only screwed up the numbers for NYC? I won't accept that number unless the Department of City Planning for all the other cities challenges their Census Bureau figure.

[sprtsluvr8]

Well I sure ain't moving South or West (except I'd consider parts of CA and the NW). Those areas have zero appeal to me.


Meet Angry and Bitter, the rowdy but loveable twins.

[PhillyRising]

Meet Angry and Bitter, the rowdy but loveable twins.

Why is he angry and bitter because he states a preference of not wanting to live there? Is the whole world supposed to want to live in the Sunbelt?

[JackStraw]

Why is he angry and bitter because he states a preference of not wanting to live there? Is the whole world supposed to want to live in the Sunbelt?

I don't get it either. They guy just said he wouldn't live in the South or West, and that was his opinion. There was no anger or bitterness I saw. I am the same way. Give me the northeast's old cities and four seasons. I never been to the North West except for Boise, Idaho but I think I would like Seattle and Portland. Lived in Denver and I still liked the Northeast cities better.

[Crawford]

And the US Census Bureau only screwed up the numbers for NYC? I won't accept that number unless the Department of City Planning for all the other cities challenges their Census Bureau figure.

:rolleyes: Ok, you are now officially trolling. You won't accept the number because it makes you look foolish.

You are welcome to accept certain Census numbers that fit your agenda and reject other Census numbers that don't fit your agenda. You are also welcome to believe in unicorns and the Easter Bunny.

Thankfully, your opinions are now discredited and are of no consequence.

[sprtsluvr8]

I don't get it either. They guy just said he wouldn't live in the South or West, and that was his opinion. There was no anger or bitterness I saw. I am the same way. Give me the northeast's old cities and four seasons. I never been to the North West except for Boise, Idaho but I think I would like Seattle and Portland. Lived in Denver and I still liked the Northeast cities better.

Oh please people! We see the bitterness and envy in these threads all the time - it's very easy to recognize. The way those posts were worded and the "I can't stand the most popular areas of the U.S." are clearly not simply stated opinions. Opinions can easily be stated in a more acceptable manner without the "in your face" style...we all know this. The above post is worded nicely, stating opinions without cracking on the things he doesn't really care for.

No one thinks that all people should want to live in the warmer climates of the U.S. I know some people enjoy cold weather, I just don't really understand it. :) People like different things...

[Serenade]

DC is northern hospitality meets southern efficiency.

[Trae]

^^ Tell me about it. It was 76 today in the DC area but the humidity was unbearable. Soon as I walked out, I start sweating. But I will say that 90 degrees and dry weather feels much better than 80 degrees with 90% humidity. Actually, I would go and say it's pleasant. But I was raised in Central Texas where the summer starts off humid but then the heat becomes dry for the majority of the season. But I'm beginning to despise Summer, though. Hurry up September and start cooling off.

Sometimes when I check the mail, I break a sweat. I've lived here all my life and it still happens.

[Quixote]

:rolleyes: Ok, you are now officially trolling. You won't accept the number because it makes you look foolish.

You are welcome to accept certain Census numbers that fit your agenda and reject other Census numbers that don't fit your agenda. You are also welcome to believe in unicorns and the Easter Bunny.

Thankfully, your opinions are now discredited and are of no consequence.

Trolling? Hardly the case. Presenting a legitimate argument that goes against yours ain't trolling. It's called debate.

The California Department of Finance lists Los Angeles' January 1, 2007 figure at 4,018,080 while the US Census Bureau lists Los Angeles' July 1, 2006 figure at 3,849,378. That's a deficit of 168,702. That's a large amount, larger than any other California city deficit. The US Census Bureau apparently only screwed up NYC's figure. Los Angeles has yet to challenge its US Census Bureau figure, of which I wouldn't be suprised if the estimate is significantly higher. You can't present NYC's new figure and pass that along without doing the same with the other cities. Whatever you do to one side, you do to the other, of which the other cities have yet to challenge their Census figures. Think of it as simple algebra.

[Capsule F]

Oh please people! We see the bitterness and envy in these threads all the time - it's very easy to recognize. The way those posts were worded and the "I can't stand the most popular areas of the U.S." are clearly not simply stated opinions. Opinions can easily be stated in a more acceptable manner without the "in your face" style...we all know this. The above post is worded nicely, stating opinions without cracking on the things he doesn't really care for.

No one thinks that all people should want to live in the warmer climates of the U.S. I know some people enjoy cold weather, I just don't really understand it. :) People like different things...

Didn't you get banned.

[b-s]

Right Evergray, nothing but 515 sq. miles of that in Phoenix. :haha:

Fortunately for us, Phoenix is much bigger and more interesting than you can imagine. You make a valid point about Phoenix not yet reaching its urban boundary, just try choosing a more representative pic.

BTW, being originally from Boston, it's interesting that you choose a North End shot for your comparison pic. Its worth mentioning that the degree of density for this particular neighborhood doesn't extend beyond the freeway,the harbor, or all of the development that replaced the adjacent neighborhoods wiped out in the name of 'urban renewal'.

Do you have any dense pictures of Phoenix to share? I've never seen any. Seriously, no sarcasm intended.

[sprtsluvr8]

Didn't you get banned.

Apparently not...but it doesn't take much intelligence to figure that one out for yourself, since I'm present and active...