U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-29-2010, 04:13 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,171 posts, read 11,177,921 times
Reputation: 4047

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicagoland60426 View Post
I notice the census site has two different numbers for Chicago. American survey estimates says one thing and the other says another. According to AS estimates, Chicago had 2,850,502. The other estimate(and the one C-D has) shows Chicago had 2,851,268 people in 2009. Not much of a difference, but it does raise an eyebrow slightly.
I tend to not trust Wikipedia at all. Over the last few months (before they corrected it) it said Dallas had a population of 1.4 million. That's just so unreal for them to go from 1.23 Million to 1.4 within 1 year like that.

I know in the last one year Dallas has also had a large infill rate, but it will stabilize to 30,000-40,000 range for the next few 1 year estimates. Its good to see Chicago make a recovery from that record low of the 2.7 million range. Chicago has looked like a roller coaster in the last 2 decade.
1950-1990: It saw a decline
1990-2000: It saw an increase
2000-2008: It saw a decline
2008-Present: Its back to growing again

Like honestly, Chicago is THE most unpredictable major city in terms of population there has ever existed in America. Nice to see it see such a massive increase, infill is working, it will slow down but its a good start, moderate 25,000-30,000 a year growth rates will be good for Chicago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brent6969 View Post
33. Atlanta: 540,921 540,932

This is way too low.....What 11 people????
I think the US Census had an overestimate for Atlanta's 2008 figures. (2007-2008 was an 80,000 increase, and they can make a lot of accidents with overestimates with a number that large) Which is why. 540,000 is still a long way from 2007 though. So I guess they had some issues of their own. Remember their methodology depends on how many people respond and what not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-29-2010, 04:14 PM
 
Location: Dallas, Texas
1,805 posts, read 1,975,136 times
Reputation: 960
Quote:
Originally Posted by brent6969 View Post
33. Atlanta: 540,921 540,932

This is way too low.....What 11 people????
It is possible that the Census bureau overestimated 2008's figures for Atlanta and that the majority of newcomers have settled in suburban cities around Atlanta.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2010, 04:19 PM
 
Location: The City
21,420 posts, read 28,524,541 times
Reputation: 7061
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fillmont View Post
It is possible that the Census bureau overestimated 2008's figures for Atlanta and that the majority of newcomers have settled in suburban cities around Atlanta.

There were some articles that speculated a pretty sharp slowing in the Atlanta growth but 11 seems absurd. I think the 2008 numbers had many differances as noted earlier; 2008 was very low for both Chicago and Phildelphia - I wonder if the 2010 data helps their overall accuracy and what actually goes into the estimates. I do know the American fact finder estimates show an error margin, with that being said the true growth could be much higher depending on where the real number is in the error range from year to year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2010, 04:27 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,171 posts, read 11,177,921 times
Reputation: 4047
Yeah I'm more than positive that Atlanta has an overestimate in 2008 numbers their range from 2007 to 2009 is so unreal for Atlanta to have grown so much.

Atlanta 2007-2009:
432,511-540,932

And 2008 it was 540,000. Think about it, if it was 432,511 in 2007, and it didn't extend the city boundaries, then the 2008 numbers were clearly an overestimate. The 2009 number is far more realistic for Atlanta.
432,511 in 2007 to 540,000 in 2008, that's just so unreal.

Where as Philadelphia & Chicago have grown so much for the following reasons:
1. They were under counted due to many ignoring the census counts, and not responding back.
2. They have had great development and infill projects within their cities.
3. Birth and immigration for Chicago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2010, 05:04 PM
 
Location: Tower of Heaven
4,023 posts, read 5,970,856 times
Reputation: 1427
One interesting fact : The Texas winner is San Antonio, it beats Houston and Dallas ! It's one of the most populated city but it is really underestimated !
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2010, 05:58 PM
 
Location: The canyon (with my pistols and knife)
12,373 posts, read 15,709,744 times
Reputation: 13241
Anybody else think that Pittsburgh was grossly undercounted in 2008?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2010, 06:15 PM
 
Location: The City
21,420 posts, read 28,524,541 times
Reputation: 7061
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnutella View Post
Anybody else think that Pittsburgh was grossly undercounted in 2008?

Not sure but either way glad to see both PA cities growing
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2010, 06:27 PM
 
13,902 posts, read 20,676,627 times
Reputation: 3961
It seems like every city is growing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2010, 06:52 PM
 
10,671 posts, read 20,288,017 times
Reputation: 9778
How do they get those numbers? I thought the census came out with their official estimates a few months ago that said Chicago grew by 23,000 people or something to 2,853,000.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2010, 07:03 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,512 posts, read 25,744,591 times
Reputation: 7486
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
I think the Census made a statement on a fairly large understament of Philly in the 2008 number recently - HTown may have the link

This would show an ~100K jump in the Philly proper number (in just one year which i would doubt honestly even though it is seeing the best growth in 50+ years)
Yes this is the underestimate I was telling you about. The census somehow underestimated 100K in Philly's pop for 2008.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:15 AM.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top