Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I thought Boston grew a lot considering that there are very low birth rates and not much new housing has been built to allow people move to the city or even the inner suburbs. I wonder when the msa will extend outside 128 and include the towns and cities just outside it.
I didnt look at the numbers for ATL, but for whatever reason the overestimations for DFW were entirely from its white residents. The Asian, Hispanic, and (especially) the black populations of DFW were underestimated:
That is because the census does its estimations in groups and then it adds it all up.
I guess they were overestimating the people coming from OK and AR and underestimating the people coming from the coasts.
They had DFW population at over 6.5M in 2009. If the estimates had continued, they would be forecasting DFW to be at 6.9M today.
Some time last decade they were predicting ATL would pass Miami, DC and Houston.
Minneapolis is now growing almost as fast as Chicago in raw numbers, it is only 3,000 less. Passing it would be a big deal as it would make Minneapolis the fastest growing metro in the region. When was the last time Chicago wasn't the Midwest leader in raw population growth?
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,509 posts, read 11,875,397 times
Reputation: 2501
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDX_LAX
Looks like the sunbelt is still growing faster than anywhere else, 8/10!
Knowing how these estimates are derived, it's not surprising. However, since all the Census can really do is use historical averages and extrapolate (throw in some known info as needed), I highly doubt that some of these figures are accurate. Take Phoenix, which gained enough residents to put it on track to add just under a million people by 2020. Yet Phoenix is suffering a MAJOR foreclosure crisis (2nd to Vegas, likely), and lost its strongest employment industry (construction) to the recession.
Until I see evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume that some of these places are only growing based on old information. I'd be completely okay to be wrong about this, btw!
You just answered your own question. When you're dealing with small numbers, a small change in the number can still equal a large change in percentage. Hell, if one person lives in an area, and then a second person moves in, then the population of the area just increased by 100%.
By the way, you can get to Jacksonville from Charlton County in 30 minutes via U.S. 1.
I understand that.... but to be #1 in the nation?? That boggles me. There are TONS of counties with small populations like Charlton that would be in the running for highest percentage population increase.
I also knew about US 1. I have driven it from Jacksonville to Folkston more than a few times. It takes 45 minutes to an hour. Not very efficient versus I-95 in Camden county going from, say, Woodbine or Kingsland to Jacksonville.
That is because the census does its estimations in groups and then it adds it all up.
I guess they were overestimating the people coming from OK and AR and underestimating the people coming from the coasts.
They had DFW population at over 6.5M in 2009. If the estimates had continued, they would be forecasting DFW to be at 6.9M today.
Some time last decade they were predicting ATL would pass Miami, DC and Houston.
Chile, boo! They knew Atlanta wasn't going to surpass Houston. Houston has always been slightly larger than Atlanta and always will be unless something drastic happens. However, Atlanta is larger than Miami.
And then Hall County is clearly a part of suburban Atlanta and its lively hood depends on Gwinnett County and I-85 but they choose to separate it from the MSA. The Census Bureau can save it.
Last edited by isawooty; 04-07-2012 at 09:16 PM..
Reason: clarity
Here is the county population map. You can click on each individual county and get the population.
Gwinnett County added the most people in metro Atlanta. Gwinnett is sealing it's own fate. If that county hits a million people it's going to be over. They couldn't even manage the county by the time it hit 700k in 2005. A million? I-85 can't handle all that.
I think Gwinnett will be fine. It's the only county in the entire metro that has a real plan for creating major new limited access roadways.
GA 316 is going to be limited access past SR20, and Sugarloaf Parkway is finally going to connect to 316, and will then be extended north to 85 eventually--ROW is owned for all of this and it will be funded over time. It isn't some pie in the sky proposal, and much of it is under construction.
Those plans are WAY better and more ambitious than anything else in Atlanta except for the Beltline, probably.
If you look at the TIA project list, I think Gwinnett did the best, although they neglect the southern part of the county quite a lot. Still, there will be new bridges over 85 and connecting roads, meant to make local travel easier.
The recent employment and wage growth data bear this out: Gwinnett is performing the best in the metro among large counties.
Urbanized Areas and Metropolitan Areas are not the same thing in the least.
Urbanized Areas are based on contiguous development only--and don't even consider the actual relationship of geographic areas and that is why its not accurate to liken UAs to MSAs.
MSAs are based on county-to-county commuting patterns. San Bernardino and Riverside Counties happen to extend to the CA/NV border--so what? That has zero relevance.
Furthermore, CSAs are basically the same thing as MSAs, except the threshold of cross commuting for combining is not as strict, 15% instead of 25%.
I didn't liken them, but rather was saying that MSAs are a far better way of measuring growth, but that urbanised areas are the best because their reach can grow in terms of area and it's a highly specific geographic quality that, like the metropolitan area as a whole, is amorphous, fluid, and not bound to possibly arbitrary municipal boundaries.
Location: Pittsburgh (via Chicago, via Pittsburgh)
3,887 posts, read 5,519,793 times
Reputation: 3107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broadrippleguy
lol @ Crook County Illinois growing.
i honestly dont believe the census gets it.
Even Chicagoans call it Crook County. so why in the world would i live in that high tax/messed up county?
Heck the suburban counties are way more desirable than Crook County so i bet Crook County is losing population well the suburbs are gaining population.
Does anyone know when individual cities estimates will be coming out?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I-85 can't handle all that.
