Quote:
Originally Posted by SD_Phil
^By the same token the state of CA estimated Los Angeles' population to be over 4 million in 2009 and it too is 300k or so off the census' estimates.
If it was one city or two cities it might be a fluke or flub on the part of the census but this is a consistent trend and not necessarily a bad one. Maybe it's not a bad thing for population growth to slow, to allow city infrastructure to catch up with and anticipate future demand, before big growth spurts happen again.
In LA's case this would not be a bad thing, I think similar things might be said for NYC.
|
Thats kind of where Im at, either almost all reported cities are undercounted, or cities just aren't as large as we all thought. Maybe we were all led to believe this by the massive building boom, but I tend to think of us (demographically speaking) as a little behind Europe. It seems as though European cities have been stable for some time now, even though many seem more vibrant and alive.
I suspect that it has to do with fewer children, more wealth, etc. Middle income singles are now taking the same space that immigrant families with several children took. (Which is exactly what I did myself, I own a 3 bd house in the city of Portland and live by myself. I replaced a family with 2 kids/2 parents).
**Edit** Total NYC Public School Enrollment in 2000-2001 school year: 1,098,832 Source:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/pub/schlbronx.pdf
2006 999150 Source
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009020.pdf