Oregon Population Thread Including PSU and Census Data - Page 2

58rhodes · #21 Posted **May 21, 2015, 11:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

To drive home my point about our housing shortage, Portland is growing faster than SF. That should give pause and make some realize we need a faster rate of housing stock development.

But... who will be able to afford all these affordable houses and apartments on all these 9, to 14 dollar an hour jobs?

PDXDENSITY · #22 Posted **May 21, 2015, 11:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 58rhodes

But... who will be able to afford all these affordable houses and apartments on all these 9, to 14 dollar an hour jobs?

Minimum wage should increase so full time = livable. That's not $9 or $14/hr. That's more like $15+ hour. The increase tied to inflation. And not all jobs are rock bottom like you claim, anyway.

58rhodes · #23 Posted **May 21, 2015, 11:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

Minimum wage should increase so full time = livable. That's not $9 or $14/hr. That's more like $15+ hour. The increase tied to inflation. And not all jobs are rock bottom like you claim, anyway.

I never claimed all jobs are rock bottom I am claiming that we dont have enough middle class jobs. Portland still has 5% plus unemployment. In my business I put out 1 listing for $15 per hr I will get 20 responses in less than 4 days.

MarkDaMan · #24 Posted **May 21, 2015, 11:42 PM**

Forumers, let's try to stay on topic in our threads...

58rhodes · #25 Posted **May 22, 2015, 12:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkDaMan

Forumers, let's try to stay on topic in our threads...

sorry

colganc · #26 Posted **May 22, 2015, 1:06 AM**

Summary for larger cities in the metro area...

Portland
2013: 609,520
2014: 619,360
Percentage: 1.6%
Absolute: 9,840
Density: 4,642

Vancouver
2013: 167,108
2014: 169,294
Percentage: 1.3%
Absolute: 2,186
Density: 3,644

Gresham
2013: 109,266
2014: 109,892
Percentage: .6%
Absolute: 626
Density: 4,337

Hillsboro
2013: 97,476
2014: 99,393
Percentage: 1.9%
Absolute: 1,917
Density: 4,159

Beaverton
2013: 93,611
2014: 95,109
Percentage: 1.6%
Absolute: 1,498
Density: 5,078

PDXDENSITY · #27 Posted **May 22, 2015, 2:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by colganc

Summary for larger cities in the metro area...

Portland
2013: 609,520
2014: 619,360
Percentage: 1.6%
Absolute: 9,840
Density: 4,642

Vancouver
2013: 167,108
2014: 169,294
Percentage: 1.3%
Absolute: 2,186
Density: 3,644

Gresham
2013: 109,266
2014: 109,892
Percentage: .6%
Absolute: 626
Density: 4,337

Hillsboro
2013: 97,476
2014: 99,393
Percentage: 1.9%
Absolute: 1,917
Density: 4,159

Beaverton
2013: 93,611
2014: 95,109
Percentage: 1.6%
Absolute: 1,498
Density: 5,078

Thanks for this table of the data.

58rhodes · #28 Posted **May 22, 2015, 2:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PDXDENSITY

Thanks for this table of the data.

Beaverton has very little park acreage,very little office/commercial, no major airport and is full of badly maintained garden style apartments and pretty much no 20 minute neighborhoods and thats the best we can do?

the more you quote stuff the more you make MY point

colganc · #29 Posted **May 22, 2015, 2:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 58rhodes

Beaverton has very little park acreage,very little office/commercial, no major airport and is full of badly maintained garden style apartments and pretty much no 20 minute neighborhoods and thats the best we can do?

Beaverton is not exactly in a fair situation. It has massive amounts of office square footage that truly should be part of such a discussion. It just happens that the office space is in "unincorporated" Washington County.

It has a decent amount of parks, they're just not where you would expect. A lot of the remaining empty lots are getting filled with three and four story apartments with relatively minimal parking spaces. Just need to look half a mile or less up and down the MAX line.

It may not have many "20 minute neighborhoods" or any that meet whatever the definition is, but it's fast moving in that direction as evidenced by the recent developments near Nike and MAX.

maccoinnich · #30 Posted **May 26, 2015, 5:53 AM**

Interesting analysis from Slate. Portland is only the 15th fastest growing large city in America...

...however it is the #1 fastest growing city relative to its suburbs.

colganc · #31 Posted **May 26, 2015, 6:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Interesting analysis from Slate. Portland is only the 15th fastest growing large city in America...

removed image...

...however it is the #1 fastest growing city relative to its suburbs.

removed image...

I wonder how the latter graph's data was calculated. I'm getting 1.4% growth for the rest of the metro area when Portland is excluded. When just taking the top four suburbs I get 1.3%. I don't understand what they mean by growing faster by 1% or what numbers were used.

Vancouver, Gresham, Hillsboro, Beaverton...
2013: 467,461
2014: 473,688

Portland MSA pop ex-Portland...
2013: 1,705,227
2014: 1,728,887

maccoinnich · #32 Posted **May 26, 2015, 7:36 AM**

Yeah, now that you point it out I'm also stumped trying to work out what their methodology is.

NickName · #33 Posted **May 21, 2016, 6:22 PM**

65MAX · #34 Posted **May 21, 2016, 10:00 PM**

Quite a bit off in which direction? Are the Census numbers higher, or are PSU's numbers higher? You only gave us the Census numbers here.

2oh1 · #35 Posted **May 21, 2016, 10:17 PM**

Edit: It looks like he was saying the opposite of what I thought he was.

NickName · #36 Posted **May 21, 2016, 10:43 PM**

I didn't make it too clear, my bad...

The numbers given are for the current 2015 Census estimate and the (+) is for the difference between the 2010 and current 2015 estimate the Census conducted.

Separately, the PSU estimates were much lower for several cities.

Example: PSU estimate was about 6,000 people lower in Bend then the comparable US Census estimate was.
Example: PSU estimated Portland to have 613,355 people in 2015. Compared to the 632,309 that the Census estimates.

2oh1 · #37 Posted **May 21, 2016, 10:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickName

I didn't make it too clear, my bad...

The numbers given are for the current 2015 Census estimate and the (+) is for the difference between the 2010 and current 2015 estimate the Census conducted.

Separately, the PSU estimates were much lower for several cities.

Example: PSU estimate was about 6,000 people lower in Bend then the comparable US Census estimate was.
Example: PSU estimated Portland to have 613,355 people in 2015. Compared to the 632,309 that the Census estimates.

Now you've got me confused too. You're saying the opposite of what I thought... the U.S. Census numbers are higher than the PSU numbers?

NickName · #38 Posted **May 21, 2016, 11:15 PM**

Ok... fixed the original post and eliminated any talk about PSU Estimates... I'll just focus it on the US Census estimates...

MarkDaMan · #39 Posted **Nov 18, 2017, 4:49 AM**

Oregon population surges to 4.1 million in 2017, PSU report says
Updated 10:59 AM; Posted 10:26 AM
By The Associated Press (posted on OregonLive)

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-no...river_home_pop

Quote:

New estimates put Oregon's population at 4.1 million.

An annual report from Portland State University's Population Research Center says the number of state residents has increased by nearly 65,000 from 2016. People migrating to the state accounted for 88 percent of the jump while 12 percent was from an increase in births over deaths.

The tri-county metropolitan area saw the largest gains in population from 2016 to 2017.

Multnomah and Washington counties each added more than 12,000 residents, and Clackamas County added slightly more than 8,000. Portland gained more residents than any other Oregon city, and its population now stands at 639,100.

...(continues)

innovativethinking · #40 Posted **Nov 18, 2017, 5:50 AM**

Yet we continue to build 5 + 1 buildings smh

It’s time we build up and up and up to house these ppl moving to Portland it’s only going to be much more in the coming years