Latest city/town population estimates released (Atlanta, Columbus: low income, apartments, leasing)

[Saintmarks]

American FactFinder - Results *

Notable factoids:

Atlanta growth slowed, 12k in both the last two updates, only 4k this time.

Sandy Springs slowed as well, stopped just short of joining the 100k club.

Savannah and Columbus had nice gains, Augusta did not (uh-oh, watch for a 25 page argument on the Georgia page).

Norcross shows growth from the 9k range to over 15k from the 2010 census to the first estimate and then holding steady since. Did a sizeable annexation take place that I missed?

Chamblee shows an almost identical gain from 9k to 15k (please don't complain that I round off to the nearest thousand). I am sure this reflects the annexation north to 285 from a few years back but does not include the latest annexation down to 85.

Everybody else showed very modest gains or remained stagnant. No city really looks like it is booming.

[tikigod311]

Originally Posted by Saintmarks

. No city really looks like it is booming.

Probably a good thing at this point.

[ATLJR]

Good stuff. 448,000 is nothing to scoff at. I'd assume with all the apartments that have completed this year and their subsequent leasing that number currently is over 450,000. It'll be interested to see once all this multifamily goes through where Atlanta's population is at the end of the year and the next.

[Saintmarks]

Originally Posted by ATLJR

Good stuff. 448,000 is nothing to scoff at. I'd assume with all the apartments that have completed this year and their subsequent leasing that number currently is over 450,000. It'll be interested to see once all this multifamily goes through where Atlanta's population is at the end of the year and the next.

I always find these estimates interesting, but I don't put a huge amount of stock into them. Into the late 00s, the Census bureau had the CoA gaining over 100k from the previous census, had Atlanta well past the half million mark. When the 2010 census came out, it only showed a gain of 4k, from 416k to 420k. Then to say the city grew by 12k from 2010 to 2011 in the height of the recession? Maybe a correction for what many claim to be a severe undercounting in the 2010 census, but whatever way you look at it, the numbers are skewed. And now as the economy is improving and more residential stuff is taking off in the city, the numbers go from a growth of 12k a year for 2 years down to only 4k this last year? A flawed system for sure.

[waronxmas]

Originally Posted by Saintmarks

I always find these estimates interesting, but I don't put a huge amount of stock into them. Into the late 00s, the Census bureau had the CoA gaining over 100k from the previous census, had Atlanta well past the half million mark. When the 2010 census came out, it only showed a gain of 4k, from 416k to 420k. Then to say the city grew by 12k from 2010 to 2011 in the height of the recession? Maybe a correction for what many claim to be a severe undercounting in the 2010 census, but whatever way you look at it, the numbers are skewed. And now as the economy is improving and more residential stuff is taking off in the city, the numbers go from a growth of 12k a year for 2 years down to only 4k this last year? A flawed system for sure.

Well, the flaw comes in how the Census Bureau collects data different during the actual count versus estimates. For estimates, they use several data points as well as estimate calculation on how to determine how many people live in an area. This calculation was used for the 2000 Census, and every major city across the board (except for in the Rust Belt) showed a significant growth in the central cities. It was barred from the 2010 Census beginning of the decade hard count back in 2006. When the 2010 came in, without this calculation, it made it appear that their estimates were overzealous.

Personally, I think it lies somewhere in the middle. It is well documented fact that certain populations of people do not and will not participate in filling out Census questionnaires. They're usually low income as well as heavily black and latino, all three of which are groups the city of Atlanta has a lot of. Without ways of getting around the reluctance to self report, getting to the actual number will always be difficult.

For the record, I believe the city proper population in reality is likely around 500,000...plus or minus 15000.

[bigstick]

The census had a dreadful count record for a lot of cities in 2010.

[Saintmarks]

Originally Posted by waronxmas

Well, the flaw comes in how the Census Bureau collects data different during the actual count versus estimates. For estimates, they use several data points as well as estimate calculation on how to determine how many people live in an area. This calculation was used for the 2000 Census, and every major city across the board (except for in the Rust Belt) showed a significant growth in the central cities. It was barred from the 2010 Census beginning of the decade hard count back in 2006. When the 2010 came in, without this calculation, it made it appear that their estimates were overzealous.

Personally, I think it lies somewhere in the middle. It is well documented fact that certain populations of people do not and will not participate in filling out Census questionnaires. They're usually low income as well as heavily black and latino, all three of which are groups the city of Atlanta has a lot of. Without ways of getting around the reluctance to self report, getting to the actual number will always be difficult.

For the record, I believe the city proper population in reality is likely around 500,000...plus or minus 15000.

I too think the truth is in between, but to see those numbers so skewed in the last decade, it doesn't make sense as other large cities with the same demographic that are less than likely to fill out Census questionnaires weren't as far off base when the final census came to town. Houston and Dallas, for example, have similar large percentages of their population in these poorer minority groupings. Atlanta is not that different, but they weren't undercounted to the degree Atlanta was and both have much larger populations to count.

It feels like the census looked at the trendy areas that people were moving into in the last decade and used that as a baseline for the entire city while ignoring the leveling of many public housing units (as well as older private apartment units) in less than desirable parts of town. Gentrification also plays a part as DINKs and singles tend to replace larger families per dwelling. Subsequently, those moving into the city are less likely to add to the natural growth (births) than those leaving.

In short, I feel that Atlanta did NOT grow as much as it has in the last three years and the gains were more of a correction for under-counting. But how can a city over estimate or under-count (Depending on which direction you look at it) by over 25%? I don't think it is quite the half million and never was.

[waronxmas]

Originally Posted by Saintmarks

I too think the truth is in between, but to see those numbers so skewed in the last decade, it doesn't make sense as other large cities with the same demographic that are less than likely to fill out Census questionnaires weren't as far off base when the final census came to town. Houston and Dallas, for example, have similar large percentages of their population in these poorer minority groupings. Atlanta is not that different, but they weren't undercounted to the degree Atlanta was and both have much larger populations to count.

It feels like the census looked at the trendy areas that people were moving into in the last decade and used that as a baseline for the entire city while ignoring the leveling of many public housing units (as well as older private apartment units) in less than desirable parts of town. Gentrification also plays a part as DINKs and singles tend to replace larger families per dwelling. Subsequently, those moving into the city are less likely to add to the natural growth (births) than those leaving.

In short, I feel that Atlanta did NOT grow as much as it has in the last three years and the gains were more of a correction for under-counting. But how can a city over estimate or under-count (Depending on which direction you look at it) by over 25%? I don't think it is quite the half million and never was.

Nah, Atlanta wasn't the only place. NYC (off by several hundred thousand), Los Angeles, Detroit (well, that one is probably true) and several other cities expressed the same concerns that we did. Even Dallas and Houston came in under, but from what I understand they had a very sophisticated campaign to get people to fill out the Census questionnaires.

Really it comes down to those two factors of Atlanta: The lack of the estimate calculation and a poor Census campaign (the Census hit right when Mayor Reed took office and Mayor Franklin didn't seem to good plan in place for him to use). Evidence on the ground is also another clue, and not just the huge building boom that we saw in the 00s. Almost ever neighborhood seems more alive and populated than in the 90s.

[ATLJR]

Originally Posted by Saintmarks

I always find these estimates interesting, but I don't put a huge amount of stock into them. Into the late 00s, the Census bureau had the CoA gaining over 100k from the previous census, had Atlanta well past the half million mark. When the 2010 census came out, it only showed a gain of 4k, from 416k to 420k. Then to say the city grew by 12k from 2010 to 2011 in the height of the recession? Maybe a correction for what many claim to be a severe undercounting in the 2010 census, but whatever way you look at it, the numbers are skewed. And now as the economy is improving and more residential stuff is taking off in the city, the numbers go from a growth of 12k a year for 2 years down to only 4k this last year? A flawed system for sure.

2000 to 2010 was actually 421,323 to 422,775. I understand these are just estimates and it can be difficult, without doing a census, to estimate accurately. I think the period of time between 2000 to 2010, with the demolition of the government housing and the recession, was a unique period that really that made it difficult to accurately estimate the population. I would put more faith in the newer estimates hoping that they've learned from that and look to account for those factors in the future.

I can definitely see the growth slowing down to 4,000 this year without there being much question. There hasn't been new construction so its going to be difficult to grow your population without new stock of housing. That's why we're seeing rental pricing so high and that's why I also think we should see some decent growth this year and next.

[JoeP]

No Census doesn't have a dreadful record on its census. The estimates can be way off though as they are well.... estimates and the data used to formulate these annual changes can be off and then over time veer off the rails with reality in either direction.