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.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,053,483 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dncr
Honestly, my heart dropped when I saw 2.7 million. That seems....unreal. I agree with Danny though. This city is extremely unpredictable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove
Okay I feel better now. Danny's 09 numbers might not be wrong, it is his 08 numbers that suck.
a bunch of your 08 numbers were wrong Danny
Dude they're not my numbers, they're from ACS. The US Census must seriously be on coke or something, look at this for Chicago. Also those numbers for San Antonio is what I got off their own site, so I really don't know. Personally I think they've under counted and over counted before and that can explain why they had such an unreal rate from 2008-2009 for many of these cities.
^^ Does that look like a normal city to you guys? The hell no. I mean New Orleans in the 2000's has looked similarly close to that but that was because of a natural disaster. But seriously W.T.F Chicago?!
Like obviously the city has been struggling for the past 20 years to reverse population loss, and seems like for the last 20 years its been in the same back and forth range the 2.7-2.9 millions mark. It seems like we'll finally be seeing some stable growth though, as things have stabilized and started to increase now as a whole. But seriously though, its got to be the most unreal, and unimaginable city to predict and project a population for in American History. Seemed like there was some internal conflict within Chicago city limits, years where it saw more migration out of the city and years where it saw more migration into the city, and given the current trends urbanization is where its headed, so it would really surprise me if it continues to have this back and forth swing from now on. The city in general has started growing and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
So the 2008 numbers of Danny are wrong ! It's pretty logical because Miami's growth was too high, the city is great but it's one of the hardest-hit by the housing crisis, that would have been unrealistic !
Miami 2000 : 362,000
Miami 2009 : 433,000
Growth : + 71,000 (+ 19.6% in 9 years it's very impressive after all)
Dude they're not my numbers, they're from ACS. The US Census must seriously be on coke or something, look at this for Chicago. Also those numbers for San Antonio is what I got off their own site, so I really don't know. Personally I think they've under counted and over counted before and that can explain why they had such an unreal rate from 2008-2009 for many of these cities.
^^ Does that look like a normal city to you guys? The hell no. I mean New Orleans in the 2000's has looked similarly close to that but that was because of a natural disaster. But seriously W.T.F Chicago?!
Like obviously the city has been struggling for the past 20 years to reverse population loss, and seems like for the last 20 years its been in the same back and forth range the 2.7-2.9 millions mark. It seems like we'll finally be seeing some stable growth though, as things have stabilized and started to increase now as a whole. But seriously though, its got to be the most unreal, and unimaginable city to predict and project a population for in American History. Seemed like there was some internal conflict within Chicago city limits, years where it saw more migration out of the city and years where it saw more migration into the city, and given the current trends urbanization is where its headed, so it would really surprise me if it continues to have this back and forth swing from now on. The city in general has started growing and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
I saw varying numbers for Chicago on different areas of the ACS site, but if you go look at the breakdown for Illinois, it will give you what I believe are the most accurate numbers year by year.
These are the more accurate numbers for Chicago for the last 10 years:
So the 2008 numbers of Danny are wrong ! It's pretty logical because Miami's growth was too high, the city is great but it's one of the hardest-hit by the housing crisis, that would have been unrealistic !
Miami 2000 : 362,000
Miami 2009 : 433,000
Growth : + 71,000 (+ 19.6% in 9 years it's very impressive after all)
Yes the first numbers giving more Miami was more than 9 years old. It had appeared that Miami grew by 70K in one year but it was more like 9 years
Dude they're not my numbers, they're from ACS. The US Census must seriously be on coke or something, look at this for Chicago. Also those numbers for San Antonio is what I got off their own site, so I really don't know. Personally I think they've under counted and over counted before and that can explain why they had such an unreal rate from 2008-2009 for many of these cities.
Chicago Time Table:
1950: 3,620,962
1960: 3,550,404
1970: 3,366,957
1980: 3,005,072
1990: 2,783,726
^^ Does that look like a normal city to you guys? The hell no. I mean New Orleans in the 2000's has looked similarly close to that but that was because of a natural disaster. But seriously W.T.F Chicago?!
Like obviously the city has been struggling for the past 20 years to reverse population loss, and seems like for the last 20 years its been in the same back and forth range the 2.7-2.9 millions mark. It seems like we'll finally be seeing some stable growth though, as things have stabilized and started to increase now as a whole. But seriously though, its got to be the most unreal, and unimaginable city to predict and project a population for in American History. Seemed like there was some internal conflict within Chicago city limits, years where it saw more migration out of the city and years where it saw more migration into the city, and given the current trends urbanization is where its headed, so it would really surprise me if it continues to have this back and forth swing from now on. The city in general has started growing and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
That drop of 200,000 isn't realistic at all. These sources are...not credible at all haha. How on earth did CHICAGO of all places have a loss of 200,000 and then a gain of 200,000 ALL WITHIN 5 YEARS
Here are the latest census estimates for incorporated places over 100,000, ranked by July 1, 2009 population. It shows yearly estimates from April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2009.
Danny's numbers aren't wrong. They're ACS, perhaps difference in methodologies. We'l see Aprill 2011 the official numbers.
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.
