The US Census Bureau thread

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by toddguy

Well that is all we can do is "assume" since they were not included. Seems like it would also be hard to go from 399,000 to "fairly small population gains" or "declines" but whatever. I admit I only posted my post because of his arrogant response-calling someone a moron when his list is, in fact, not accurate because it is not complete-there are not 20 cities listed.

I admit, randomly choosing 2005 as a data point was odd.

But giving that poster the benefit of the doubt, let's look at the numbers of the remaining 5 metros.

Detroit - 4,488,000 in 2005 and 4,313,002 in 2017 (decline of 174,998)
St. Louis - 2,733,155 in 2005 and 2,807,338 in 2017 (increase of 74,183)
Chicago - 9,362,080 in 2005 and 9,553,040 in 2017 (increase of 190,960)
Boston - 4,473,477 in 2005 and 4,836,531 in 2017 (increase of 363,054)
Philadelphia - 5,850,021 in 2005 and 6,096,020 in 2017 (increase of 245,999)

With exception to Boston, the remaining metros did in fact have notably smaller gains (while Detroit declined).

Source

Philadelphia:

https://www.phl.org/Documents/Business/Reports/MSD2013.pdf (page 80)

https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/...ddle-innew-metropolitan.html#g/431264/33 (slide show)

Boston:

https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/...ddle-innew-metropolitan.html#g/431264/33 (slide show)

https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/3577/MPv11.pdf?sequence=1 (page 65)

Chicago:

https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/3577/MPv11.pdf?sequence=1 (page 65)

https://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-ro...-losing-residents-in-2017-477676043.html

St. Louis:

https://alfred.stlouisfed.org/series?seid=STLPOP

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article206368289.html

Detroit:

https://www.census.gov/population/pop-profile/dynamic/PopDistribution.pdf (page 4)

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/m...3/22/wayne-county-census-data/445199002/

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

It's really quite simple. If Toronto were in the US, it would demographically be in the same boat as other northern US cities.

People in Toronto don't have a Phoenix or Dallas to "flee" to.

This is true, but there are three other huge factors.

1. Canada's much more favorable immigration laws (this is the biggest factor, by far).

2. No African American community and history of segregation, white flight, and race determining residence.

3. Toronto is the dominant Canadian city, with hegemonic status not approached by any U.S. city (comparatively). Like 20% of the Canadian economy is in the GTA. Even the NYC metro comes nowhere close to 20% of U.S. economy.

And the only other possible Canadian "world" city isn't English-speaking, so GTA is obvious destination for professionals. U.S., in contrast, has like a dozen metros that are plausible candidates for hard-driving professionals.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Top 10 Counties With Numeric Decrease: 2016-2017

Top 10 Largest-Gaining Metropolitan Areas (Numeric Increase): 2016-2017:

1) Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 146,238
2) Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX 94,417
3) Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA 89,013
4) Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 88,772
5) Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 65,908
6) Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 64,386
7) Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 57,017
8) Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL 56,498
9) Austin-Round Rock, TX 55,269
10) Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 54,874

I would like to point out that with these numbers Phoenix metro is now roughly tied with the San Francisco’s (~100 person difference ) metro and will very likely bump up to the number 10 spot above Boston by the 2020 census. Being a top ten metro is going to be a big deal for the city


Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ

4,737,270 gaining ~88k a year

San Francisco -Oakland CA

4,737,357 gaining ~ 20k a year

Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH

4,836,531 gaining ~30k

We don’t have a CSA because there is too much wilderness/farms between Phoenix Tucson and Prescott but maybe someday.

In be 4 haters hate

[The North One]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

It's really quite simple. If Toronto were in the US, it would demographically be in the same boat as other northern US cities.

People in Toronto don't have a Phoenix or Dallas to "flee" to.

Toronto has always had tons of favoritism in Canadian government policy; kind of like how the south has had a damn near Marshall plan with federal government subsidies and handouts and you're now seeing the effects. It's not that hard for Canadians to immigrate to the US, if they really wanted Pheonix they would have gone there by now.

[mhays]

It must be infuriating for San Franciscans to have half their metro considered another metro. Much like LA with Riverside.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by mhays

It must be infuriating for San Franciscans to have half their metro considered another metro. Much like LA with Riverside.

Msa and csa

The problem is they never refined them and if we went with csa’s then you get neybyork philly and it’s like 35 million people Yet riverside-la are much more interconected than New York and philly IMO.

The whole megaregion thing I think is the best new way of looking at urban areas but it hasn’t caught on yet

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Msa and csa

The problem is they never refined them and if we went with csa’s then you get neybyork philly and it’s like 35 million people Yet riverside-la are much more interconected than New York and philly IMO.

The whole megaregion thing I think is the best new way of looking at urban areas but it hasn’t caught on yet

Right now, MSAs and CSAs are based on commuting patterns.

If a region has more than one major employment center, then each employment center will be considered its own MSA (even if they're a part of the same CSA)

Flint and Ann Arbor relative to Detroit is another example of this.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Msa and csa

The problem is they never refined them and if we went with csa’s then you get neybyork philly and it’s like 35 million people Yet riverside-la are much more interconected than New York and philly IMO.

That makes no sense. NYC and Philly aren't the same CSA. LA and IE are in the same CSA.

The NYC CSA has around 24 million, and the Philly CSA has around 7 million. I could see Hartford (1.5 million) joining the NYC CSA, but Philly is highly implausible right now.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Obadno

I would like to point out that with these numbers Phoenix metro is now roughly tied with the San Francisco’s (~100 person difference ) metro and will very likely bump up to the number 10 spot above Boston by the 2020 census. Being a top ten metro is going to be a big deal for the city


Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ

4,737,270 gaining ~88k a year

San Francisco -Oakland CA

4,737,357 gaining ~ 20k a year

Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH

4,836,531 gaining ~30k

We don’t have a CSA because there is too much wilderness/farms between Phoenix Tucson and Prescott but maybe someday.

In be 4 haters hate

At the rate Pinal County is growing, it won't be long until Phoenix MSA and Tucson MSA are connected.

Pinal County Population growth:
2000 179,727 54.4%
2010 375,770 109.1%
Est. 2017 430,237 14.5%

[SteveD]

If current trends hold, the Atlanta metro appears to be destined to nudge ahead of Philly in the next three or four years, perhaps by the official 2020 census.

DFW is just insane. Though it's further down the road, again if current trends hold, it appears inevitable that there will be a historic shift in the coming years as it edges past Chicago into the number 3 spot.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by SteveD

DFW is just insane. Though it's further down the road, again if current trends hold, it appears inevitable that there will be a historic shift in the coming years as it edges past Chicago into the number 3 spot.

True, DFW, at some point, will almost certainly be the #3 U.S. metro.

But it also illustrates that population, by itself, is pretty meaningless when it comes to comparing cities. DFW wouldn't be comparable to Chicago even if it had 30 million people. Almost all the growth is fringe sprawl, which adds nothing to the "city" feel or traditional indicators of urbanism.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by SteveD

If current trends hold, the Atlanta metro appears to be destined to nudge ahead of Philly in the next three or four years, perhaps by the official 2020 census.

DFW is just insane. Though it's further down the road, again if current trends hold, it appears inevitable that there will be a historic shift in the coming years as it edges past Chicago into the number 3 spot.

Yeah, Houston and DFW are just on a whole 'nother level of crazy with their growth. It's due to a combination of factors.

1. Tons of inward migration from Mexico (and the subsequently higher natural birth rates).

2. The fact that the oil industry has been on a tear, especially during the first 1/2 of the decade when prices were over $100/barrel during the Shale/Fracking boom.

3. The lack of an income tax, which is attractive to folks such as retirees on fixed incomes.

But even Atlanta continues to see impressive growth, with another 2.5 million people expected by 2040 (and the population possibly surpassing Miami and D.C. as well).

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Crawford

True, DFW, at some point, will almost certainly be the #3 U.S. metro.

But it also illustrates that population, by itself, is pretty meaningless when it comes to comparing cities. DFW wouldn't be comparable to Chicago even if it had 30 million people. Almost all the growth is fringe sprawl, which adds nothing to the "city" feel or traditional indicators of urbanism.

This. Most of the growth is in throwaway land use

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

This. Most of the growth is in throwaway land use

Like every other metro, most of the growth will be suburban or fringe, but these cities will see a significant amount of in-fill growth in the small geographical cores of these metros. A downtown might go from a population of 50,000 to 150,000, while the metro increases by a million. The downtown is healthier and more vibrant even though 90% of the growth occurred outside of the core.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

Yeah, Houston and DFW are just on a whole 'nother level of crazy with their growth. It's due to a combination of factors.

The Texas cities have crazy high birth-to-death ratios. They're generally younger, with far more women in child-bearing years, especially immigrant and Hispanic women.

Just to illustrate, Dallas and Houston have like twice the annual births of DC, even though all three metros have similar population. So even if no one were moving to TX, there would be healthy natural growth.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Like every other metro, most of the growth will be suburban or fringe,

I don't think that's the case in all, or even most, metros.

Almost all the growth in NY/NJ/CT since 2010 has been in NYC (and almost all the rest has been in urban suburbs, just outside NYC).

Most fringe counties in the NYC MSA and CSA are losing population, while the core counties have the fastest growth. For example, the fastest growing NJ county is Hudson, just across from Manhattan. The fastest growing CT county is Fairfield, adjacent to Westchester. 95% of NY State growth has been in NYC.

Even if there were exurban demand, the transit links to job centers are too limited, and the towns are too NIMBY.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

At the rate Pinal County is growing, it won't be long until Phoenix MSA and Tucson MSA are connected.

Pinal County Population growth:
2000 179,727 54.4%
2010 375,770 109.1%
Est. 2017 430,237 14.5%

There is already significant crossover between the far north of the Tucson msa and the far south of the Phoenix msa, 2010 not enough by possibly by 2020 and for sure by 2030. Maybe even the mythical intercity commuter train will be done by then

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't think that's the case in all, or even most, metros.

Almost all the growth in NY/NJ/CT since 2010 has been in NYC (and almost all the rest has been in urban suburbs, just outside NYC).

Most fringe counties in the NYC MSA and CSA are losing population, while the core counties have the fastest growth. For example, the fastest growing NJ county is Hudson, just across from Manhattan. The fastest growing CT county is Fairfield, adjacent to Westchester. 95% of NY State growth has been in NYC.

Even if there were exurban demand, the transit links to job centers are too limited, and the towns are too NIMBY.

That's probably true for a city like New York with very little available land. I was referring to urban politician's post about 'throwaway growth', which was in the context of DFW passing Chicago someday in the future. Even if most of the growth [or 90%] is 'throwaway' suburban sprawl, the cores of these cities will continue to grow and develop into dense urban hubs.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Crawford

But it also illustrates that population, by itself, is pretty meaningless when it comes to comparing cities. DFW wouldn't be comparable to Chicago even if it had 30 million people. Almost all the growth is fringe sprawl, which adds nothing to the "city" feel or traditional indicators of urbanism.

This. Most of the growth is in throwaway land use

Gotta love that provincialism, "even as the northern cities lose prominence they dont lose prominence" Hubris is a hell of a thing.

That makes no sense. NYC and Philly aren't the same CSA. LA and IE are in the same CSA

Thats what I mean exactly, the way they figure CSA's I think is flawed, east coast gets larger CSA even though IE and San Jose are far more dependent on LA/SF than Philly is to NYC

I dont think commuting is necessarily a good indication of how linked cites are to each-other on its own, it should be one of multiple factors.

Almost all the growth in NY/NJ/CT since 2010 has been in NYC (and almost all the rest has been in urban suburbs, just outside NYC).

NYC is an exception not a rule, and always will be until it inst a premier business hub of the world.

Places like Chicago, Detroit have seen their cities shrink while their suburbs grow.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Like every other metro, most of the growth will be suburban or fringe, but these cities will see a significant amount of in-fill growth in the small geographical cores of these metros. A downtown might go from a population of 50,000 to 150,000, while the metro increases by a million. The downtown is healthier and more vibrant even though 90% of the growth occurred outside of the core.

This is not true of every metro. Stagnant Chicagoland is seeing very little suburban growth, meanwhile the central area is growing faster than anywhere else. And that is all dense, walkable growth. It is also seeing drastic job and corporate growth.

If you just sit back and look at total metro population growth without analyzing all of the data out there in detail, you miss so much.