The US Census Bureau thread - Page 49

dimondpark · #**961** Posted **Mar 23, 2011, 4:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fflint

I know Portland isn't a CSA, but it might be helpful to throw PDX onto the CSA lists anyway for comparison's sake.

Yes, along with Miami, Phoenix, San Diego and Tampa...our biggest 'unattached' MSAs.

Let me take a look see...

Steely Dan · #**962** Posted **Mar 23, 2011, 4:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fflint

I know Portland isn't a CSA, but it might be helpful to throw PDX onto the CSA lists anyway for comparison's sake.

ditto for Miami.

Thundertubs · #**963** Posted **Mar 23, 2011, 4:12 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fflint

Thought some of you might be interested to read a pdf by Brookings listing Rank of Loss of Black Population Among Cities with Populations Greater than 20% Black". Big growth in the North Carolina cities, losses in the Rust Belt.

I wonder how much of the changes on that chart were due to movement from the latter to the former?

dimondpark · #**964** Posted **Mar 23, 2011, 4:24 AM**

6 Largest Uncombined Metro Areas, 2010
- Miami/Fort Lauderdale MSA: 5,564,635 (Officially Completed)
- Phoenix MSA: 4,192,887 (Officially Completed)
- San Diego MSA: 3,095,313 (Officially Completed)
- Tampa MSA: 2,783,243 (Officially Completed)
- Portland MSA: 2,226,009 (Officially Completed)
- San Antonio MSA: 2,142,508 (Officially Completed)

6 Largest Uncombined MSAs by
Numerical Change 2000-2010
Phoenix MSA +941,011
Miami MSA +557,071
San Antonio +430,805
Tampa MSA +387,246
Portland MSA +298,128
San Diego MSA +281,480

6 Largest Uncombined MSAs by
Percentage Change 2000-2010
Phoenix MSA +28.9%
San Antonio MSA +25.1%
Tampa MSA +16.2%
Portland MSA +15.5%
Miami MSA +11.1%
San Diego MSA +10.1%

ColDayMan · #**965** Posted **Mar 23, 2011, 4:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Compiled by DANNY@C-D

Combined Statistical Areas, 2010 Census
- Los Angeles CSA: 17,877,506 (Officially Completed)
- Chicago CSA: 9,686,021 (Officially Completed)
- New York CSA: 8,864,330 (Uncompleted until NY (State) release)NEXT WEEK.
- Washington DC/Baltimore CSA: 8,639,239 (Uncompleted until WV release)
- Boston CSA: 7,559,060 (Officially Completed)
- Bay Area CSA: 7,468,390 (Officially Completed)
- Dallas/Fort Worth CSA: 6,610,530 (Officially Completed)
- Philadelphia CSA: 6,533,683 (Officially Completed)
- Houston CSA: 6,051,363 (Officially Completed)
- Atlanta CSA: 5,639,649 (Officially Completed)
- Detroit CSA: 5,218,852 (Officially Completed)
- Seattle CSA: 4,199,312 (Officially Completed)
- Minneapolis/Saint Paul CSA: 3,577,451 (Officially Completed)
- Denver CSA: 3,090,874 (Officially Completed)
- Cleveland CSA: 2,881,937 (Officially Completed)
- Saint Louis CSA: 2,845,298 (Officially Completed)
- Orlando CSA: 2,818,120 (Officially Completed)
- Sacramento CSA: 2,461,780 (Officially Completed)
- Pittsburgh CSA: 2,447,393 (Officially Completed)
- Charlotte CSA: 2,258,314 (Uncompleted until SC release)
- Cincinnati CSA: 2,172,191 (Officially Completed)
- Kansas City CSA: 2,105,217 (Officially Completed)
- Indianapolis CSA: 2,080,782 (Officially Completed)
- Columbus CSA: 2,071,052 (Officially Completed)
- Las Vegas CSA: 1,995,215 (Officially Completed)
- Austin CSA: 1,759,039 (Officially Completed)
- Milwaukee CSA: 1,751,316 (Officially Completed)
- Raleigh/Durham CSA: 1,749,525 (Officially Completed)
- Salt Lake City CSA: 1,744,886 (Officially Completed)
- Nashville CSA: 1,670,890 (Officially Completed)
- Louisville CSA: 1,427,483 (Officially Completed)
- Oklahoma City CSA: 1,322,429 (Officially Completed)
- Grand Rapids CSA: 1,321,557(Officially Completed)
- New Orleans CSA: 1,214,932 (Officially Completed)
- Birmingham CSA: 1,208,452 (Officially Completed)
- Tulsa CSA: 988,454 (Officially Completed)
- Omaha CSA: 901,041 (Officially Completed)

He forgot - Dayton CSA: 1,072,891 (Officially Completed)

dimondpark · #**966** Posted **Mar 23, 2011, 4:49 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColDayMan

He forgot - Dayton CSA: 1,072,891 (Officially Completed)

He also forgot Fresno. Im starting to think that he didnt all CSAs.

BevoLJ · #**967** Posted **Mar 23, 2011, 4:51 AM**

Perhaps this is a dumb question and sorry to interrupt but what is the difference in CSA and MSA? I thought I knew but now I am seeing Austin as a CSA and always thought it was only a MSA and CSA's were more for cities like Dallas with Fort Worth, or LA with Riverside and that sort of stuff. The Austin CSA number looks just like the MSA number so since both the CSA and MSA numbers are the same why have both?

Anyway, sorry for the silly question. Thanks a ton for those list and all of the hard work put into them dimondpark!

wwmiv · #**968** Posted **Mar 23, 2011, 4:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BevoLJ

Perhaps this is a dumb question and sorry to interrupt but what is the difference in CSA and MSA? I thought I knew but now I am seeing Austin as a CSA and always thought it was only a MSA and CSA's were more for cities like Dallas with Fort Worth, or LA with Riverside and that sort of stuff. The Austin CSA number looks just like the MSA number so why is it a CSA?

Anyway, sorry for the silly question. Thanks a ton for those list and all of the hard work put into them dimondpark!

CSAs are simple a broader definition for an area. The commuter percentage threshold is lower. Counties that are included in a CSA, but not an MSA, are typically just tangentially related to the central city (hush, hush on that - the census bureau and the OMB stupidly want to scrap the central city concept).

For instance, the Austin CSA adds one county to the Austin MSA: Burnet County. Marble Falls (the major population center there) has only a marginal relationship to Austin, but it is a relationship nonetheless. It's just that that relationship is not as strong as either San Marcos (Hays County) or Round Rock/Georgetown (Williamson County).

Dallas-Fort Worth is a single metropolitan area. It is broken into two Metropolitan Divisions: Dallas and Fort Worth-Arlington. Dallas-Fort Worth does have a CSA, but it isn't because Fort Worth was suddenly added to Dallas.

For more information on urban area, metropolitan area, and combined area definitions, check out this thread:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=189299

babybackribs2314 · #**969** Posted **Mar 23, 2011, 4:58 AM**

Unless everyone in West Virginia disappeared for the census (always possible... many caves...), DC's growth was very extensive this decade and, numerically, similar to Phoenix and Atlanta's (and that is a major wow when you think about it; I never considered DC to be such a boom town this past decade). I think the strong #s for Washington have very much to do with the recession's relatively minimal effects on the region, compared to economies like Phoenix and Atlanta. The 2000 population of DC/Baltimore's CSA was 7,572,647 FWIW.

Basically DC's CSA is now (likely) less than one million from approaching Chicago's CSA, which added fewer than half as many residents as DC. While current trends may not continue, DC could be roughly comparable in size to Chicago by 2030 or so.

lawfin · #**970** Posted **Mar 23, 2011, 4:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Compiled by DANNY@C-D

Combined Statistical Areas, 2010 Census
- Los Angeles CSA: 17,877,506 (Officially Completed)
- Chicago CSA: 9,686,021 (Officially Completed)
- New York CSA: 8,864,330 (Uncompleted until NY (State) release)NEXT WEEK.
- Washington DC/Baltimore CSA: 8,639,239 (Uncompleted until WV release)
- Boston CSA: 7,559,060 (Officially Completed)
- Bay Area CSA: 7,468,390 (Officially Completed)
- Dallas/Fort Worth CSA: 6,610,530 (Officially Completed)
- Philadelphia CSA: 6,533,683 (Officially Completed)
- Houston CSA: 6,051,363 (Officially Completed)
- Atlanta CSA: 5,639,649 (Officially Completed)
- Detroit CSA: 5,218,852 (Officially Completed)
- Seattle CSA: 4,199,312 (Officially Completed)
- Minneapolis/Saint Paul CSA: 3,577,451 (Officially Completed)
- Denver CSA: 3,090,874 (Officially Completed)
- Cleveland CSA: 2,881,937 (Officially Completed)
- Saint Louis CSA: 2,845,298 (Officially Completed)
- Orlando CSA: 2,818,120 (Officially Completed)
- Sacramento CSA: 2,461,780 (Officially Completed)
- Pittsburgh CSA: 2,447,393 (Officially Completed)
- Charlotte CSA: 2,258,314 (Uncompleted until SC release)
- Cincinnati CSA: 2,172,191 (Officially Completed)
- Kansas City CSA: 2,105,217 (Officially Completed)
- Indianapolis CSA: 2,080,782 (Officially Completed)
- Columbus CSA: 2,071,052 (Officially Completed)
- Las Vegas CSA: 1,995,215 (Officially Completed)
- Austin CSA: 1,759,039 (Officially Completed)
- Milwaukee CSA: 1,751,316 (Officially Completed)
- Raleigh/Durham CSA: 1,749,525 (Officially Completed)
- Salt Lake City CSA: 1,744,886 (Officially Completed)
- Nashville CSA: 1,670,890 (Officially Completed)
- Louisville CSA: 1,427,483 (Officially Completed)
- Oklahoma City CSA: 1,322,429 (Officially Completed)
- Grand Rapids CSA: 1,321,557(Officially Completed)
- New Orleans CSA: 1,214,932 (Officially Completed)
- Birmingham CSA: 1,208,452 (Officially Completed)
- Tulsa CSA: 988,454 (Officially Completed)
- Omaha CSA: 901,041 (Officially Completed)

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the officially completed designation you have provided. It seems to me that the CSA'a you are using are based on 2003 designation. Don't we have to wait until OMB releases the updated CSA to really have a designation of 'officially completed'?

dimondpark · #**971** Posted **Mar 23, 2011, 5:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BevoLJ

Perhaps this is a dumb question and sorry to interrupt but what is the difference in CSA and MSA? I thought I knew but now I am seeing Austin as a CSA and always thought it was only a MSA and CSA's were more for cities like Dallas with Fort Worth, or LA with Riverside and that sort of stuff. The Austin CSA number looks just like the MSA number so since both the CSA and MSA numbers are the same why have both?

Anyway, sorry for the silly question. Thanks a ton for those list and all of the hard work put into them dimondpark!

Its nothing...other people did the hard work of adding up the CSA counties.

Anyhow,
Austin was combined with Burnet County, TX which is a seperate Micropolitan Area also known as Marble Falls, TX Micropolitan Area. Not connected enough to be a single MSA but close enough to be joined in a single CSA.

dimondpark · #**972** Posted **Mar 23, 2011, 5:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lawfin

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the officially completed designation you have provided. It seems to me that the CSA'a you are using are based on 2003 designation. Don't we have to wait until OMB releases the updated CSA to really have a designation of 'officially completed'?

True, but these are the CSA populations as of the Census date.

The OMB will make its changes later but we can still add them up based on their current boundaries.

Also, there are updates made every year. Austin for example became a CSA a few years ago but we can still manually look up the components and add them up.

hudkina · #**973** Posted **Mar 23, 2011, 5:20 AM**

The new Metropolitan standards won't be finalized for at least two years. In the meantime, we can use the most up to date standards.

Somnio · #**974** Posted **Mar 23, 2011, 5:31 AM**

This PDF from the OMB contains the most up to date definitions available...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...ins/b10-02.pdf

BevoLJ · #**975** Posted **Mar 23, 2011, 5:34 AM**

Ah, ok. Thanks guys. I had no idea that Marble Falls had been added to that. I go out there all the time and love it out there. Beautiful area but I wish they hadn't done that. The Hill Country is so beautiful I would hate to see it get even more sucked in by Austin and have more housing or other things built that could distract from the beauty and fun to be had out there.

wwmiv · #**976** Posted **Mar 23, 2011, 6:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BevoLJ

Ah, ok. Thanks guys. I had no idea that Marble Falls had been added to that. I go out there all the time and love it out there. Beautiful area but I wish they hadn't done that. The Hill Country is so beautiful I would hate to see it get even more sucked in by Austin and have more housing or other things built that could distract from the beauty and fun to be had out there.

Marble Falls will never be built out in a suburban fashion. You can rest assured in that it is both too far from Austin and too expensive an area for massive development.

Expat · #**977** Posted **Mar 23, 2011, 12:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Marble Falls will never be built out in a suburban fashion. You can rest assured in that it is both too far from Austin and too expensive an area for massive development.

You might be right. I don't know Marble Falls. But, I see it is only 48 miles from Austin with Lake Travis area in between. Cities that grow quickly in a sprawl fashion can easily go that far. And unless it is protected somehow, being an expensive, desirable area won't stop it from being developed.

fleonzo · #**978** Posted **Mar 23, 2011, 1:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Compiled by DANNY@C-D

Combined Statistical Areas, 2010 Census
- Los Angeles CSA: 17,877,506 (Officially Completed)
- Chicago CSA: 9,686,021 (Officially Completed)
- New York CSA: 8,864,330 (Uncompleted until NY (State) release)NEXT WEEK.
- Washington DC/Baltimore CSA: 8,639,239 (Uncompleted until WV release)
- Boston CSA: 7,559,060 (Officially Completed)
- Bay Area CSA: 7,468,390 (Officially Completed)
- Dallas/Fort Worth CSA: 6,610,530 (Officially Completed)
- Philadelphia CSA: 6,533,683 (Officially Completed)
- Houston CSA: 6,051,363 (Officially Completed)
- Atlanta CSA: 5,639,649 (Officially Completed)
- Detroit CSA: 5,218,852 (Officially Completed)
- Seattle CSA: 4,199,312 (Officially Completed)
- Minneapolis/Saint Paul CSA: 3,577,451 (Officially Completed)
- Denver CSA: 3,090,874 (Officially Completed)
- Cleveland CSA: 2,881,937 (Officially Completed)
- Saint Louis CSA: 2,845,298 (Officially Completed)
- Orlando CSA: 2,818,120 (Officially Completed)
- Sacramento CSA: 2,461,780 (Officially Completed)
- Pittsburgh CSA: 2,447,393 (Officially Completed)
- Charlotte CSA: 2,258,314 (Uncompleted until SC release)
- Cincinnati CSA: 2,172,191 (Officially Completed)
- Kansas City CSA: 2,105,217 (Officially Completed)
- Indianapolis CSA: 2,080,782 (Officially Completed)
- Columbus CSA: 2,071,052 (Officially Completed)
- Las Vegas CSA: 1,995,215 (Officially Completed)
- Austin CSA: 1,759,039 (Officially Completed)
- Milwaukee CSA: 1,751,316 (Officially Completed)
- Raleigh/Durham CSA: 1,749,525 (Officially Completed)
- Salt Lake City CSA: 1,744,886 (Officially Completed)
- Nashville CSA: 1,670,890 (Officially Completed)
- Louisville CSA: 1,427,483 (Officially Completed)
- Oklahoma City CSA: 1,322,429 (Officially Completed)
- Grand Rapids CSA: 1,321,557(Officially Completed)
- New Orleans CSA: 1,214,932 (Officially Completed)
- Birmingham CSA: 1,208,452 (Officially Completed)
- Tulsa CSA: 988,454 (Officially Completed)
- Omaha CSA: 901,041 (Officially Completed)

Hey Diamond Park- I hope you were kidding in listing the NYC's Metro CSA numbers? If not, you're off by about 13 MILLION people and in case you didn't already know it... NYC Metro's CSA will be way ahead at number one at over 22 Million (about 19.5 Million for MSA).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_o...tistical_Areas

ChiSoxRox · #**979** Posted **Mar 23, 2011, 1:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fleonzo

Hey Diamond Park- I hope you were kidding in listing the NYC's Metro CSA numbers? If not, you're off by about 13 MILLION people and in case you didn't already know it... NYC Metro's CSA will be way ahead at number one at over 22 Million (about 19.5 Million for MSA).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_o...tistical_Areas

That's because the Census Bureau has not released New York's numbers yet (and seems to be saving it to be the very last state). New York is on there mostly as a placeholder value: a good way to show that the New Jersey and Connecticut suburbs alone are nearly as populous as Chicagoland.

fleonzo · #**980** Posted **Mar 23, 2011, 2:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dralcoffin

That's because the Census Bureau has not released New York's numbers yet (and seems to be saving it to be the very last state). New York is on there mostly as a placeholder value: a good way to show that the New Jersey and Connecticut suburbs alone are nearly as populous as Chicagoland.

Yeah, that makes more sense or at least he should have put a fote note to explain. In either case the NYC population is infamous for low repsonse rates in the census hence there are always challenges to the Fed numbers. I suspect it'll be no different this time and we'll see Bloomberg/Cuomo out there demanding revisions!