Quote:
Originally Posted by dimondpark
In theory then, the SF Urban Area might not have actually lost population, the excluded areas were lopped off and so where the folks who live there.
|
It almost certainly did not "lose" people.
If anything, what now constitutes the SF UA got denser/more populous.
Same is true for two of the other "losers", Cleveland and Milwaukee. Neither of them "lost" people, they simply had large areas of land lopped off of them.
The Cleveland UA lost 58 sq. miles, and the Milwaukee UA lost 82 sq. miles, so yeah, considering that neither of them were all that large to begin with, and they're both relatively stagnant growth-wise, of course their UA's went down in population.