U.S. City Growth Trend Surprises So Far This Decade

[vertex]

Seeing that the Census has released the July 2006 estimates, it's interesting to note some trends starting to develop.

1. San Diego has been losing population for the last 4 years, though not by much. Is this simply an example of S.D. catching it's breath during a downtrend in the housing market, or (in a bigger timeframe) has the city's growth actually reached a plateau?

2. Fort Worth, Texas is suddenly growing like a weed this decade, after being in the shadow of big D for so long. A change of 20.7% over 6 years is impressive, even surpassing Las Vegas. What gives?

3. All of the top percentile growth (25% or greater) municipalities are suburbs located in states that comprise the usual list of suspects; AZ, CA, FL, NV, TX. There are 3 exceptions, 2 of which are stand-alone cities, Raleigh, NC and Bakersfield, CA. The other is Joliet, Illinois.

Yes, that Joliet...

4. Philadelphia residents may have had their pride hurt by watching Phoenix breeze by, but in their heart of hearts, is this really important? Continue to concentrate on infrastructure and taxes, and you should turn things around. It's either this, or Philly will continue to be passed by even less likely candidates, such as San Antonio, Jacksonville and Charlotte.

Have your own trend observations? Feel free to contribute or comment.

[mhays]

Hopefully the Philly people know about the "metro" concept. The metro is what the city is based on. Sports fans and the workforce for example. Tourists couldn't care less where the city limits are -- the "city" is the whole developed area, which in Philly's case is much more populous than Phoenix's developed area.

It's astonishing that this isn't clarified in articles.

[mhays]

Likewise, the growth rates from one city to another are often related to how much empty land the city has, assuming the metro is growing and the empty land isn't considered slum.

If Las Vegas got beaten by anyone, I'd assume the city of Las Vegas is getting full.

[pwright1]

:previous: To me it is fasinating to see cities like Phoenix growing and Philadelphia loosing people. Its so interesting to see city population trends rather than the whole metro area. Still when you take whole metro areas, cities like Phoenix, Atlanta, Houston, Miami, Dallas, Austin and Vegas are growing at a much faster rate than many east coast or midwest metro areas.

[vertex]

Likewise, the growth rates from one city to another are often related to how much empty land the city has, assuming the metro is growing and the empty land isn't considered slum.

Given the amount of land available to be annexed by the city, in addition to the amount of unused land within the current urban boundary, Phoenix will probably continue to sustain this rate of growth for another 15-20 years. This also assumes that development follows the current water-use model, which unfortunately is outdated.

Officials have claimed for some time now that Phoenix can sustain a population of 2 - 2.5 million, with a metro of 7-8 million, before there are major changes to the water-use paradigm.

I'm not suggesting that this sustained growth is healthy, because I don't think it is. But that is another topic of conversation.

[Texas Tuff]

:previous: To me it is fasinating to see cities like Phoenix growing and Philadelphia loosing people. Its so interesting to see city population trends rather than the whole metro area. Still when you take whole metro areas, cities like Phoenix, Atlanta, Houston, Miami, Dallas, Austin and Vegas are growing at a much faster rate than many east coast or midwest metro areas.

It is fascinating indeed. I read somewhere elsewhere in another thread that the Dallas/Ft Worth, Houston, Atlanta, and Miami metro areas all gained around 1 million or more people in the last decade. That's incredible! Texas is now the second largest state behind California, mostly due of course to the population increases in DFW, Houston, San Antonio and Austin metro areas. Phoenix of course has turned into a metro monster as well.

[PhillyRising]

4. Philadelphia residents may have had their pride hurt by watching Phoenix breeze by, but in their heart of hearts, is this really important? Continue to concentrate on infrastructure and taxes, and you should turn things around. It's either this, or Philly will continue to be passed by even less likely candidates, such as San Antonio, Jacksonville and Charlotte.

Have your own trend observations? Feel free to contribute or comment.


I think we'll live. I'd rather have the World Class skyline and close proximity to other major cities..the ocean and mountains than to have a title that in the long run is meaningless. You really can't compare a city population when one town is 3 times a big in land size than the other. If Philly was as big as Phoenix...I would be living in the city limits and my house is 34 miles from Center City and would probably be the "third" largest city.

[Trae]

It is fascinating indeed. I read somewhere elsewhere in another thread that the Dallas/Ft Worth, Houston, Atlanta, and Miami metro areas all gained around 1 million or more people in the last decade. That's incredible! Texas is now the second largest state behind California, mostly due of course to the population increases in DFW, Houston, San Antonio and Austin metro areas. Phoenix of course has turned into a metro monster as well.
Well DFW, Houston, and Atlanta all had more than 1 million. Miami got about half that. Still amazing growth though.

[hudkina]

If Philadelphia were the size of Phoenix, the city would have over 3 million people.

[pwright1]

If Philadelphia were the size of Phoenix, the city would have over 3 million people.

.....and if it were the size of San Francisco it would have 350,000. Come on now. It is what it is. People are moving there in huge numbers.

[LMich]

pwright, considering this trend towards the West and South has been going on for decades I'm a bit confused as to why anyone would be surprised that this trend continues.

[plinko]

If Philadelphia were the size of Phoenix, the city would have over 3 million people.

...and still either have flat or negative growth.

[Steely Dan]

Yes, that Joliet...


what do you mean by that? are there other notable joliet's in the nation growing like gangbusters?

[J. Will]

pwright, considering this trend towards the West and South has been going on for decades I'm a bit confused as to why anyone would be surprised that this trend continues.

Who's surprised? I doubt anyone on this forum is surprised, or anyone who follows population/demographic trends in general.

[Tom In Chicago]

I have two remote telecom nodes I manage out in Joliet and Aurora. . . after my first trip out that way to inspect the installations earlier this month I decided to give that task over to a co-worker of mine who lives out that way. . . traffic was attrocious. . . and the whole area of Joliet, Plainfield, Aurora, Naperville and sub-tending communities is one massive (sub)urban area totally contiguous area with a population of 500,000. . . not surprising then that Joliet was the fastest growing, but I wonder how much of those statistics are including township annexation vs. influx of new people. . .

[vertex]

what do you mean by that? are there other notable joliet's in the nation growing like gangbusters?

My only familiarity with Joliet is from the references in 'Blues Brothers' (sad but true). I'm a little surprised to see any Chicago suburb make the list. Any particular reason why it's growing like this?

[modkris]

Because working class people and immigrants are finding it a great bargain compared to other places in the Chicago area. The sprawl around it is crazy right now. Thousands of beige cookie cutter homes for miles along the highway.

[LMich]

Who's surprised? I doubt anyone on this forum is surprised, or anyone who follows population/demographic trends in general.

He described the trend as 'fasinating' which, to me, denotes a certain level of surprise and unfamiliarity with the isssue. Really, it's not all that fascinating. In this day and age, with such an incredibly mobile and fickle society, many of the large cities currently growing aren't attracting because of their mysterious or exotic allure or character like many cities used to do, instead, it seems to boil down to little more than simple economics, with a tint of superficiality (i.e. I don't like to be cold in the winter).

[PhillyRising]

...and still either have flat or negative growth.

What is the growth rate right for Bucks, Montgomery and Chester counties? Because if Philly were as big as either Phoenix or Houston...a good part of each of these counties would be part of the city. Their less developed areas would be the suburbs which would be growing as well. So please...stop acting as if Philly is dead or stagnant. Have you ever been here?

I hate when these census figures come out....

[Evergrey]

What is the growth rate right for Bucks, Montgomery and Chester counties? Because if Philly were as big as either Phoenix or Houston...a good part of each of these counties would be part of the city. Their less developed areas would be the suburbs which would be growing as well. So please...stop acting as if Philly is dead or stagnant. Have you ever been here?

I hate when these census figures come out....

The PA portion of the Philly metro has grown by 0.9% since 2000. 2/3 of Philly metro's population growth has occured in DE and NJ.

[PhillyRising]

The PA portion of the Philly metro has grown by 0.9% since 2000. 2/3 of Philly metro's population growth has occured in DE and NJ.


Is that with the city factored in? Take the city out and then what is growth rate?

[Red UM Rebel]

What is the growth rate right for Bucks, Montgomery and Chester counties? Because if Philly were as big as either Phoenix or Houston...a good part of each of these counties would be part of the city. Their less developed areas would be the suburbs which would be growing as well. So please...stop acting as if Philly is dead or stagnant. Have you ever been here?

I hate when these census figures come out....

I do not think they were trying to be offensive. I think the number speaks for themselves and Philly isn't the only major Northeast city losing population to major hubs in the South and West. I am not even sure how much of the slower growth in the North is people moving out compared to the population just dying out and not being replaced as quickly.

I am also not totally sure what or how they count in census polls, but if they count only legal citizens (which is what I am guessing) then in the South and West you can probably tack on another million or so to major hubs due to illegal immigrants. I know there would be an increase in numbers in other large cities too (NY, Boston, Chicago...) but not as large as the increase in Houston, Phoenix, So Cal. :tup:

[dimondpark]

Seeing that the Census has released the July 2006 estimates, it's interesting to note some trends starting to develop.

1. San Diego has been losing population for the last 4 years, though not by much. Is this simply an example of S.D. catching it's breath during a downtrend in the housing market, or (in a bigger timeframe) has the city's growth actually reached a plateau?

2. Fort Worth, Texas is suddenly growing like a weed this decade, after being in the shadow of big D for so long. A change of 20.7% over 6 years is impressive, even surpassing Las Vegas. What gives?

3. All of the top percentile growth (25% or greater) municipalities are suburbs located in states that comprise the usual list of suspects; AZ, CA, FL, NV, TX. There are 3 exceptions, 2 of which are stand-alone cities, Raleigh, NC and Bakersfield, CA. The other is Joliet, Illinois.

Yes, that Joliet...

4. Philadelphia residents may have had their pride hurt by watching Phoenix breeze by, but in their heart of hearts, is this really important? Continue to concentrate on infrastructure and taxes, and you should turn things around. It's either this, or Philly will continue to be passed by even less likely candidates, such as San Antonio, Jacksonville and Charlotte.

Have your own trend observations? Feel free to contribute or comment.

As far as San Diego, The State of California has its own estimates...

2000 1,223,415
2001 1,241,805
2002 1,256,007
2003 1,278,828
2004 1,287,602
2005 1,297,093
2006 1,305,625
2007 1,316,837

http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/ReportsPapers/Estimates/E4/E4-01-06/HistE-4.asp

and as usual, The State of California's own estimates are in direct contradiction with the Census Bureau's estimates. Usually by the time the actual Census is taken, its proven that the state was closer to being correct.

[mongoXZ]

It's very hard to believe that San Diego has lost population the past 4 years. As a resident I can't see it. Sprawl continues to encroach the northern and eastern rural areas. Traffic has gradually gotten worse. And in observing the demographic makeup in every part of town there's a very noticeable large influx of immigrants from Latin America, Southeast Asia, the Mid-East, and Africa. The southern suburbs are booming with Mexican immigrants.

Currently I've been shopping around the city for a new home and in touring a wide variety of neighborhoods you'd be hard pressed to find one with a "For Sale" sign on the lawn. I remember in the early 90's every home seemed to have one.

I know San Diego's population isn't exactly exploding but it sure isn't declining from what I see. Maybe the State figures are more accurate.

[pwright1]

pwright, considering this trend towards the West and South has been going on for decades I'm a bit confused as to why anyone would be surprised that this trend continues.

Not suprised just fasinated. :)

[plinko]

What is the growth rate right for Bucks, Montgomery and Chester counties? Because if Philly were as big as either Phoenix or Houston...a good part of each of these counties would be part of the city. Their less developed areas would be the suburbs which would be growing as well. So please...stop acting as if Philly is dead or stagnant. Have you ever been here?

I hate when these census figures come out....

Yes I have...great city from what I saw. I expected Detroit, and saw something much more akin to Boston. Far exceeded my expectations.

Nonetheless, you seem to have a major personal problem with the fact that the central Philadelphia area (the city and its inner suburbs) isn't really growing at all, but that new sunbelt cities are.

I find it interesting to note that since 1950, METRO Philadelphia and METRO Phoenix have added about the same number of people...3.7 Million. And oddly enough, Phoenix seems to have done that in a smaller area. I ask you, which of that growth is worse?

BTW, when the 2010 census comes out, MOST cities will have been vastly under-estimated. I think Philadelphia will likely match or be slightly under its 2000 number. Phoenix will likely push 1.7-1.8 million (based on what happened in the 2000 census). And it will still be a much smaller metro (though catching up quickly).

[Marcu]

Because working class people and immigrants are finding it a great bargain compared to other places in the Chicago area. The sprawl around it is crazy right now. Thousands of beige cookie cutter homes for miles along the highway.

Joliet is no surprise. The entire south and southwest suburban area of Chicago has been growing as fast as the sunbelts (and in a similar fashion -suburbanized subdivisions) for quite some time. The land is fairly cheap and the job growith is tremendous too. Just a few days ago came news of construction of another massive truck-to-rail hub bringing 12,000 jobs to the area. It's the established Chicago, inner ring, north, and northwest suburbs that bring the Chicago metro down to reality.

As far as San Diego losing people, that's a natural result of an established city. Give it ten years and Atlanta, Ft. Worth, and Vegas will all too be at zero growth.

[tech12]

As far as San Diego, The State of California has its own estimates...

2000 1,223,415
2001 1,241,805
2002 1,256,007
2003 1,278,828
2004 1,287,602
2005 1,297,093
2006 1,305,625
2007 1,316,837

http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/ReportsPapers/Estimates/E4/E4-01-06/HistE-4.asp

and as usual, The State of California's own estimates are in direct contradiction with the Census Bureau's estimates. Usually by the time the actual Census is taken, its proven that the state was closer to being correct.


The census says San Francisco lost people, and gives a 2006 population of what? 739,000? Then at the same time, the state gives SF an all time high population, at 809,000 people.

I'm more inclined to believe the state, though I wouldn't be surprised if their numbers might be slightly exaggerated.

[LMich]

As far as San Diego losing people, that's a natural result of an established city. Give it ten years and Atlanta, Ft. Worth, and Vegas will all too be at zero growth.

Do you really believe that? Baring some drastic restructuring of our economy, or some gross social revolution, why would you expect any of the cities mentioned to show low to no population growth by 2020?

[Marcu]

Do you really believe that? Baring some drastic restructuring of our economy, or some gross social revolution, why would you expect any of the cities mentioned to show low to no population growth by 2020?

Land values will catch up with the rest of the nation. The primary reason these cities are growing as fast as they are is cheap land. Just as we've seen with booming cities in the past (LA, Seattle, etc), land values will catch up and the population will stabilize within the city limits. Also, cities like Houston will reach a point where they can no longer annex more land.

[seaskyfan]

^ Seattle when - during the Klondike Gold Rush?

[TexasBoi]

L Also, cities like Houston will reach a point where they can no longer annex more land.

They've already reached that. Seeing as how they haven't annexed in over 10 years. Also, I thought Atlanta the city already had a population loss in the city before. It is now rebounding in the last five years. I may be wrong on that one.

[LMich]

No, you're not wrong. Atlanta proper is showing a serious population rebound after a few decades of decline.

Marcu, none of these cities need to annex anymore land to continue to grow. Most of the cities mentioned have much room to fill in because of their prior aggressive annexations.

[Visiteur]

So, I noticed that in the top 25 cities for losing population, the census had nine (36%) cities from the south and west. There was New Orleans, of course, but places such as Concord and Norwalk, California, Provo, Utah and Clearwater and Hialeah, Florida were on the list as well. So the NE and Midwest aren't being held responsible for all the losses.

[LMich]

I was also surprised to see so many inland California cities declining in population.

[ginsan2]

Again, I wonder what kind of population is moving to Joliet-- what kind of homes are being built? Giant McMansions, or smaller suburban homes, etc?

[StethJeff]

I think we'll live. I'd rather have the World Class skyline and close proximity to other major cities..the ocean and mountains than to have a title that in the long run is meaningless. You really can't compare a city population when one town is 3 times a big in land size than the other. If Philly was as big as Phoenix...I would be living in the city limits and my house is 34 miles from Center City and would probably be the "third" largest city.

Philadelphia has mountains yet Phoenix doesn't? :haha: :haha:

[jkskyscshane]

I grew up outside Phila and I was amazed to see how well it has actually done. It still struggles a bit downtown at night ( they lost their last major department store -- Wanamakers is now a Macy's ) but they have a new symphony hall and the rail system is very robust - you can manage pretty well without a car and the subways, light rail, commuter and intercity train systems connect and run ( some of them 24 hours a day ).

Their economy has been helped by proximity to New York with much cheaper land. Philadelphia used to be a struggling old industrial city but has changed into a lot of medical, pharmaceutical and info sys.

Not everyone wants to move far away from their families and start out fresh in the West or South. And with high fuel costs looking like they are here to stay, taking the train to work and reading the paper isn't such a bad alternative.

[sprtsluvr8]

No, you're not wrong. Atlanta proper is showing a serious population rebound after a few decades of decline.

Marcu, none of these cities need to annex anymore land to continue to grow. Most of the cities mentioned have much room to fill in because of their prior aggressive annexations.


Very true...Atlanta's population went downhill for a 25-30 years, and has just recently surpassed the 1970 census figure - which was also the city's peak population.

There are very few opportunities for Atlanta to annex anything...and incidentally the city hasn't done any significant annexation since Buckhead in 1952. Atlanta is surrounded by incorporated cities and towns with a couple of small exceptions...I think those areas were annexed 2 years ago and increased the population by about 5,000. We've been growing the old-fashioned way...by having babies, living to at least 90 years old, and luring new residents with our abundant traffic and sexy weather.

[Trae]

Part of me wishes Atlanta annexed Sandy Springs.

[sprtsluvr8]

Part of me wishes Atlanta annexed Sandy Springs.

We have the next best thing...Sandy Springs, the drag queen.

[IndianaMike]

Again, I wonder what kind of population is moving to Joliet-- what kind of homes are being built? Giant McMansions, or smaller suburban homes, etc?

Mostly smaller suburban homes (although one could argue the "small" part). Better put, cheap...you see lots of advertisements on billboards and even TV for "Homes in the 180s" in New Lenox (just east of Joliet) and Plainfield, Aurora, Oswego, etc...

[cabasse]

Give it ten years and Atlanta, Ft. Worth, and Vegas will all too be at zero growth.

atlanta's got a lot of sparsely developed and unused previously-industrial land it can grow on. it's only got about half the population of detroit, and for the most part, being developed rather densely, for atlanta standards.

http://img.coxnewsweb.com/B/01/85/51/image_6851851.jpg

there's more of this type stuff going up all over town than the 15 or so residential towers that have gone up in business districts.

and luring new residents with our abundant traffic and sexy weather

:haha: right on!

[Chicago3rd]

My only familiarity with Joliet is from the references in 'Blues Brothers' (sad but true). I'm a little surprised to see any Chicago suburb make the list. Any particular reason why it's growing like this?

Why surprised? Chicago metro gained close to 1 million people the last decade. It is still growing quiet fast. Except for a few sunbelt cities....Chicago metro is keeping up a great pace...even though it has too much sprawal.

[vertex]

Wow, leave it to a n00b to resurrect a 9-month old thread. :)

^^^For what it's worth Chicago3rd, you didn't answer the question.

It's weird to see a breeder metro like Chicago actually retaining people at a decent clip. Still wondering why...

[Steely Dan]

It's weird to see a breeder metro like Chicago actually retaining people at a decent clip. Still wondering why...

what is a "breeder metro"?

[JackStraw]

I can only think, it is a metro that breeds the people who move out to the sprawl belt cities....:shrug:

[Chicago3rd]

Wow, leave it to a n00b to resurrect a 9-month old thread. :)

^^^For what it's worth Chicago3rd, you didn't answer the question.

It's weird to see a breeder metro like Chicago actually retaining people at a decent clip. Still wondering why...

It is obvious....we are a great city lots of people want to live here. Sun City even built a retirement community here. Chicago is an economic engine and the midwest is a fantastic place to live (I have lived in the south, west, Asia and Europe). So why not?

http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/template.aspx?id=7048
GO TO 2040 will help northeastern Illinois accommodate an anticipated 2.8 million new residents and 1.8 million jobs in the next three decades. The plan will shape the region’s transportation system and development patterns, while also addressing the natural environment, economic development, housing, education, human services and other factors shaping quality of life.

[northbay]

As far as San Diego, The State of California has its own estimates...

2000 1,223,415
2001 1,241,805
2002 1,256,007
2003 1,278,828
2004 1,287,602
2005 1,297,093
2006 1,305,625
2007 1,316,837

http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/ReportsPapers/Estimates/E4/E4-01-06/HistE-4.asp

and as usual, The State of California's own estimates are in direct contradiction with the Census Bureau's estimates. Usually by the time the actual Census is taken, its proven that the state was closer to being correct.

As far as San Diego losing people, that's a natural result of an established city. Give it ten years and Atlanta, Ft. Worth, and Vegas will all too be at zero growth.

even if u look at census numbers san diego is still GAINING population:

1990 1,110,549 26.8%
2000 1,223,400 10.2%
2006 1,256,951 2.7%

source: census bureau, taken from wikipedia


san diego is not shrinking!!!!!

just in case u guys didnt get it:

san diego is not shrinking!!!!!

[urbanactivist]

^^ Isn't San Diego the safest metro in California, in terms of earthquake risk?? Although it seems to be very susceptible to fires.

[sprtsluvr8]

I can only think, it is a metro that breeds the people who move out to the sprawl belt cities....:shrug:


Where exactly is the sprawl belt? There is major sprawl in almost every U.S. city across the country. It seems like there is even a little "sprawl envy" in some cases.

[JackStraw]

Where exactly is the sprawl belt? There is major sprawl in almost every U.S. city across the country. It seems like there is even a little "sprawl envy" in some cases.

Dude, you need to relax. I like to call it the sprawl belt. It isn't a hidden fact that most southern cities are built more on sprawl then their older northern counterparts. Yes, I know all the northern cities have sprawl.

Just relax though.

[sprtsluvr8]

Dude, you need to relax. I like to call it the sprawl belt. It isn't a hidden fact that most southern cities are built more on sprawl then their older northern counterparts. Yes, I know all the northern cities have sprawl.

Just relax though.

That's funny...you telling someone to relax when the tone of your post is so aggressively negative and defensive. I was simply asking a question regarding the location of something you called the sprawl belt. So it is located in the southern U.S.? Interesting...

[JackStraw]

That's funny...you telling someone to relax when the tone of your post is so aggressively negative and defensive. I was simply asking a question regarding the location of something you called the sprawl belt. So it is located in the southern U.S.? Interesting...

:twoguns:

[strongbad635]

Several Eastern U.S. cities that lost population for decades, from the 1950s onward, have finally stabilized and some (like Baltimore, Atlanta, and Richmond) have had some population gains recently. Perhaps many in the 80s and 90s underestimated the desire for urban living, and many people are discovering the hidden advantages of living closer to the center of it all (walking, accessible attractions, greater social ties, etc.) San Francisco lost population for a few years and now has a rising population as well.

[JDRCRASH]

That's funny...you telling someone to relax when the tone of your post is so aggressively negative and defensive. I was simply asking a question regarding the location of something you called the sprawl belt. So it is located in the southern U.S.? Interesting...

:haha:

Anyways, with technology advancing, I wouldn't be stunned if California reached 60 Million people by 2040, if not sooner.

[Echo Park]

oh hey guys, whats up? are we cheering on sprawl again?

[cabasse]

yes.

[SLO]

:haha:

Anyways, with technology advancing, I wouldn't be stunned if California reached 60 Million people by 2040, if not sooner.

Yeesh, I hope not. I was really hoping the population would table and stabilize around 35 mil.

[Trae]

Why surprised? Chicago metro gained close to 1 million people the last decade. It is still growing quiet fast. Except for a few sunbelt cities....Chicago metro is keeping up a great pace...even though it has too much sprawal.

One million people?

http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/popm00/pcbsa16980.html

Wow, leave it to a n00b to resurrect a 9-month old thread. :)

^^^For what it's worth Chicago3rd, you didn't answer the question.

It's weird to see a breeder metro like Chicago actually retaining people at a decent clip. Still wondering why...

Because of the birth-death ratio. Chicago is losing 50,000+ (domestic-out migration, or whatever you call it).

[SLO]

^Overall the metro is growing though.

[Trae]

^Overall the metro is growing though.

Because the birth rate is high. People aren't moving in.

[SLO]

Because the birth rate is high. People aren't moving in.

Just taking a quick scan of other large metros, the birth rate didnt seem higher than most others I looked at. (LA, SF, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta).
I suppose between births and international immigration that accounts for the growth....

[Trae]

Just taking a quick scan of other large metros, the birth rate didnt seem higher than most others I looked at. (LA, SF, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta).
I suppose between births and international immigration that accounts for the growth....

Okay?

Metros like Houston, Atlanta, and Dallas have a lot of domestic migration (people moving in). Chicago doesn't have that (reason for the huge decline numbers). It is growing from the birth rate and international migration (which is still a few thousand shy of the number of people leaving Chicagoland).

[pip]

Okay?

Metros like Houston, Atlanta, and Dallas have a lot of domestic migration (people moving in). Chicago doesn't have that (reason for the huge decline numbers). It is growing from the birth rate and international migration (which is still a few thousand shy of the number of people leaving Chicagoland).
Because the birth rate is high. People aren't moving in.


Deaths + negative domestic migration = births. Zero sum there.

International immigration gives the increase.

International immigration is people moving in.

A high birthrate would suggest that it is immigrants have many of the births as immigrants have a higher birthrate than non immigrants.

[Chicago3rd]

[QUOTE=Trae;3519151]One million people?

http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/popm00/pcbsa16980.html

you can't do math? 916,000 officially...plus we can all add the urban undercount of most major cities. Again...Chicagoland is one of the fastest growing metros in the country factually....and the article shows how we are expecting another 2.8 million by 2040.

[Chicago3rd]

^Overall the metro is growing though.

His own link proved that...but he didn't even read it....his own link.

[Chicago3rd]

Because the birth rate is high. People aren't moving in.

Actually that is only a partial picture of what is happening. Having huge amounts of foreigners moving into the metro helped too...infact that is what made the city of Chicago grow back in the 1990's.

Another thing....is we are talking about "Growth Trends"...which is a little more complicated than just breeding new ones.

[alleystreetindustry]

its not the end of the world if your city doesn't have more people than another. look at it this way, if you like the town you live in.. sweet. why care about what other people think about it?

[Chicago3rd]

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/009865.html
10 U.S. Metro Areas With Highest Numerical Growth: April 1, 2000-July 1, 2006
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, Ga. 890,211
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, Texas 842,449
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, Texas 824,547
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, Ariz. 787,306
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, Calif. 771,314
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, Calif. 584,510
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, N.Y.-N.J.-Pa. 495,154
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, D.C.-Va.-Md.-W.Va. 494,220
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, Fla. 455,869
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, Ill.-Ind.-Wis. 407,133

[Chicago3rd]

its not the end of the world if your city doesn't have more people than another. look at it this way, if you like the town you live in.. sweet. why care about what other people think about it?

Lot of Texas boys always play the numbers game....sometimes they need to smell some reality. The funny thing is that two of their metros are having outstanding growth...but they still fudge numbers left and right...I think it is in the water.

[Trae]

^^Isn't that what you are doing? "Fudging the numbers"?

[QUOTE=Trae;3519151]One million people?

http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/popm00/pcbsa16980.html

you can't do math? 916,000 officially...plus we can all add the urban undercount of most major cities. Again...Chicagoland is one of the fastest growing metros in the country factually....and the article shows how we are expecting another 2.8 million by 2040.

Can you? Over the past 10 years, Chicago has grown by 575,483 according to the link.

[dktshb]

...and still either have flat or negative growth.
Ouch, that has got to hurt a little but your right on point.

[cabasse]

i'm still confused as to why there's actually an argument here. i think people are intermingling cities and metros. the dispute is whether or not the city [of chicago] itself has grown or declined, i suppose? (and iirc, there is a dispute as census data has underestimated more recently, right?)

[pip]

One million people?

http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/popm00/pcbsa16980.html



Because of the birth-death ratio. Chicago is losing 50,000+ (domestic-out migration, or whatever you call it).

the chicago area had a population in

1990 8,239,820

2000 9,157,540

population change 917,720

http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-2.pdf

the numbers estimated this decade are similar to last decades estimates

[SuburbanNation]

what do you mean by that? are there other notable joliet's in the nation growing like gangbusters?

Inner Joliet gives me this funky rustbelt vibe, not typical Outer Chicagoland. Witnessed a junky try to rob a gas station at 3am (I was indeed in Joliet at 3am) ended up being shamed by an angry gas station attendant, who let him walk. On weekends, the vibe on late south/southwest Metra lines sometimes seems to be raucous lower middle class, sometimes i imagine 2nd gen sons of immigrants throwing cans of Busch across the car after eating dinner with friends in Chicago. Reminds me of South StL City (at least with the throwing of the cans of Busch).

[Trae]

the chicago area had a population in

1990 8,239,820

2000 9,157,540

population change 917,720

http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-2.pdf

the numbers estimated this decade are similar to last decades estimates

I was thinking he meant from 1998-2008. That would be a ten-year span. And if you look (http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/popm00/pcbsa16980.html), the trend is not staying the same. Each year is actually down by about 20,000 or so (estimate).

[pip]

I was thinking he meant from 1998-2008. That would be a ten-year span. And if you look (http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/popm00/pcbsa16980.html), the trend is not staying the same. Each year is actually down by about 20,000 or so (estimate).
estimate to estimate.

You are looking at the actual revised count of the previous decade and comparing to the estimate of this decade. Last decade they underestimated the count by hundreds of thousands of people, the growth turned out to be 900,000 plus not several hundred thousand less than 900,000.

[MayorOfChicago]

^ yeah, the estimate right before the census came out was off by 97,000 for the city, and over 270,000 for the metro area.

[dlbritnot]

From what I know the Wilmington, DE part of the Phillie region is the fastest growing.

[Mr Roboto]

For a guy selling chicago a little short, with respect to reckless sprawl growth, I find it funny you have a chicago artist as your avatar.

The sun belt areas cant hog all the suburban sprawl, we need some here in the midwest too. ;)

[urbanactivist]

Lot of Texas boys always play the numbers game....sometimes they need to smell some reality. The funny thing is that two of their metros are having outstanding growth...but they still fudge numbers left and right...I think it is in the water.

Hey I like Texas just fine. I like Chicago just fine. Don't throw us all into one category.

[urbanactivist]

For a guy selling chicago a little short, with respect to reckless sprawl growth, I find it funny you have a chicago artist as your avatar.

The sun belt areas cant hog all the suburban sprawl, we need some here in the midwest too. ;)

That's sadly where much of the growth is occurring, no matter where you are in the US. Not to say that there isn't plenty of development going on in Chicago's inner core as well though. In any case, Chicago is definitely the lead metro of the Midwest, in terms of the finance market, overall economic diversity, and job/population growth. To proclaim it as having the same fate as other metros in the area would be false.

And granted, our Texas metros are muuch younger and a little more spread out than Chicago, but we are economic powerhouses in our own right, which is why population and job growth are remaining strong here even through the recession.

[dave8721]

I'd say one surprise is Miami breaking the national trend of usually having all population growth in the suburbs. In Miami's case the central city has had its population grow much faster than the suburbs and metro as a whole.
Since 2000:
-City of Miami population up an amazing 11.5%
-Miami-Dade County as a whole population only went up 5.9% (in other words there was little population growth at all in the suburbs)
-Metropolitan area population up just 8.1%
-City of Miami accounted for 31% of the population growth despite only accounting for 16% of the total population of Miami-Dade County.

[jkskyscshane]

Reply to wondering why Chicago retains people

>>It's weird to see a breeder metro like Chicago actually retaining people at a decent clip. Still wondering why...

Chicago used to be made up of old ethnic neighborhoods that formed a patchwork of what seemed like every country in Europe, especially Eastern Europe.

Now you meet a lot young people there from places like Latvia, Poland, Hungary, Romainia who feel pretty comfortable seeing so much of the old country in restaurants, churches, schools etc. With the economies of places like Poland in a mess, Chicago makes a lot of sense for an Eastern European and they don't seem to mind the snow.

Parts of Chicago you still see the advertisements on the street in Polish. It's a pretty cool place for a young person to immigrate to. And of lot of gorgeous women go there and marry American businessmen.

[Capsule F]

Phoenix metro is more dense then the Philly metro?

[CityDataForumSUX]

Part of chicagolands character can be attributed to the geography. It is very flat and its very easy to build in any direction. Hence the large swaths of suburbs that liink up with chicago. Cities like joliet are alot like most outer lying suburbs, aurora, elgin, dundee, lake in the hills, mcchenry, waukeengan: all blue collar-middle class.

Chicago has a very vibrant core and the surrounding areas around the loop are very desriable. Density seems to decrease from the loop outward.

[Trae]

For a guy selling chicago a little short, with respect to reckless sprawl growth, I find it funny you have a chicago artist as your avatar.

The sun belt areas cant hog all the suburban sprawl, we need some here in the midwest too. ;)

How am I selling Chicago short? I was just adding up the numbers from the Census.

And yeah, Common is good.

[blade_bltz]

For a guy selling chicago a little short, with respect to reckless sprawl growth, I find it funny you have a chicago artist as your avatar.

The sun belt areas cant hog all the suburban sprawl, we need some here in the midwest too. ;)

Hmm not sure how I feel about this kind of attitude...

[Mr Roboto]

Hmm not sure how I feel about this kind of attitude...

Not sure what you mean by that, but I was actually being tongue in cheek. Truth is I personally could give a flying eff about wasteful sprawl development, which is why I thought it was funny they were arguing about it in the first place. Besides, as centralized a city as Chicago is, subdivisions and cookie cutter homes getting built on out in Joliet, Romeoville etc. doesnt really register much with me. Growth is good, but I prefer infill when possible.

[Mr Roboto]

How am I selling Chicago short? I was just adding up the numbers from the Census.

And yeah, Common is good.

I guess its not your fault, but the point others were making was the annual census estimates for Chicago and other midwestern cities are usually pretty off (off as in undercounting by a lot). As we will likely find out after 2010.

like your taste in music though...

[worldwide]

common sense collaborations... word up

[dante2308]

I'd say one surprise is Miami breaking the national trend of usually having all population growth in the suburbs. In Miami's case the central city has had its population grow much faster than the suburbs and metro as a whole.
Since 2000:
-City of Miami population up an amazing 11.5%
-Miami-Dade County as a whole population only went up 5.9% (in other words there was little population growth at all in the suburbs)
-Metropolitan area population up just 8.1%
-City of Miami accounted for 31% of the population growth despite only accounting for 16% of the total population of Miami-Dade County.

which means that there is a problem...

City growth rate 2000-2006 by percent
Dallas- 18%
Atlanta- 16.8%
Phoenix- 14.5%
Las Vegas- 15.5%
Miami- 11.5%
Houston- 9.78%
New York City- 8.6%

So Miami isn't at the bottom of the Sunbelt class exactly, but it is definitely not an exceptional case in terms of city growth rate. In Atlanta's case, the metro area grew some 25% during the same period, but the city still managed to grow at a steeper clip as with Dallas, Phoenix, and Las Vegas. Of course all the cities listed are larger than Miami proper so the absolute numbers are larger for every one of those cities. Basically, these places are densifying while growing as a metro, Miami seems to be densifying at a slower clip while not growing much as a metro. Hence something is not right with the picture.

And yes I understand that Miami started out denser than all those other cities except New York, but I still feel that Miami's growth patterns signify something negative occurring.

[urbanactivist]

^Miami has less room to grow... they were (as I understand) nearing the same state as SoCal with critical density. The housing bust/credit crunch has slowed that growth rate, but when people start trusting the economy again, Miami will be as booming as ever.

The situation with the other sunbelt cities is much different, b/c there is still so much room left to grow with, but in the bad way. Dal, Hou, Phx, and LV are all landlocked cities with vast swaths of available land, so logic would presume that the suburbs will continue to extend their amoebic feet farther and farther. BUT fortunately, there are some smart people in the inner cores that are promoting smart growth to combat the amoebas at the same time. Both types of growth are happening in the sunbelt.

[JDRCRASH]

which means that there is a problem...

City growth rate 2000-2006 by percent
Dallas- 18%
Atlanta- 16.8%
Phoenix- 14.5%
Las Vegas- 15.5%
Miami- 11.5%
Houston- 9.78%
New York City- 8.6%


Where is L.A.?

[dante2308]

Where is L.A.?

Heh, L.A. is in Southern California, you know that.

Miami has less room to grow... they were (as I understand) nearing the same state as SoCal with critical density. The housing bust/credit crunch has slowed that growth rate, but when people start trusting the economy again, Miami will be as booming as ever.

The situation with the other sunbelt cities is much different, b/c there is still so much room left to grow with, but in the bad way. Dal, Hou, Phx, and LV are all landlocked cities with vast swaths of available land, so logic would presume that the suburbs will continue to extend their amoebic feet farther and farther. BUT fortunately, there are some smart people in the inner cores that are promoting smart growth to combat the amoebas at the same time. Both types of growth are happening in the sunbelt.

Miami is a bit abnormal. I used to live in that general area and I am actually convinced that tourism is the greatest portion of the economic activity there. Actually, I know it is because I have seen the statistics. That being said, it is important to note that an economic boom does not make Miami a more attractive place to work. When domestic out-migration is so high, one needs to look at the reasons people move to places in the first place.

So far I have seen people exclaim that Miami offers year round warm weather, beaches, and nice condos. None of those things went away when the recession started to hit. I think if Miami wants to boom again, it will need to become affordable again and it may need to focus more on diverse job creation and education opportunities.

[brickell]

If only it were that simple.

[SunDevil]

^Miami has less room to grow... they were (as I understand) nearing the same state as SoCal with critical density. The housing bust/credit crunch has slowed that growth rate, but when people start trusting the economy again, Miami will be as booming as ever.

The situation with the other sunbelt cities is much different, b/c there is still so much room left to grow with, but in the bad way. Dal, Hou, Phx, and LV are all landlocked cities with vast swaths of available land, so logic would presume that the suburbs will continue to extend their amoebic feet farther and farther. BUT fortunately, there are some smart people in the inner cores that are promoting smart growth to combat the amoebas at the same time. Both types of growth are happening in the sunbelt.

I don't think Phoenix is actually land locked, as far as I know there is no city or cities to the north of Phoenix that block it's potential for growth, there is however the county line. I think the only, truly, landlocked city in the entire Phoenix metro is Tempe and it is just starting to hit build out and is building up.

[urbanactivist]

^^ By landlocked, I meant that there are no bodies of water, major mountain ranges, etc. to impede sprawl growth in most directions. County lines rarely make a difference, in fact I'd say they encourage sprawl (cheaper land in a less populous county).

[dave8721]

Considering Miami's population density was already over 10,000 people per square mile adding another 11% on top of that is pretty noteworthy. Atlanta & Dallas adding population when their densities are closer to 3,000 people per square mile isn't as much of a feat.