Metros: The Framework of Population Change (2000-2009) (places, America, populations)

[waronxmas]

Of course Houston, Dallas and Atlanta will not keep this type of growth up forever. There is always a peak, but one that is likely a few decades away from occurring. However, don't take that to mean that once that happens other cities in top ten will replace them as high population growth areas.

The time has come and gone for those cities in that regard as will be the same for Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta one day. It'll just shift to different cities.

[Craziaskowboi]

Originally Posted by brent6969

Atlanta numbers are crazy.

Atlanta's numbers are what they are for one reason: HURRICANES.

During the middle of last decade, when Florida was repeatedly getting slammed by hurricanes, and when Hurricane Katrina slammed into New Orleans, lots of people moved inland, and Atlanta was the main beneficiary.

[waronxmas]

Originally Posted by Gnutella

Atlanta's numbers are what they are for one reason: HURRICANES.

During the middle of last decade, when Florida was repeatedly getting slammed by hurricanes, and when Hurricane Katrina slammed into New Orleans, lots of people moved inland, and Atlanta was the main beneficiary.

Not exactly true. 2006 was the year in which the biggest gain from a hurricane (Katrina) as the gain that year jumped to almost 200,000. Atlanta was hardly alone in this, as I believe Houston was the biggest beneficiary of people leaving the Gulf Coast after Katrina.

If you look at the list though, the largest factor in growth are births. That can be attributed to the relatively young population of the entire metro. Some other factors in the last 10 years that have led to that 35% growth in population:

1. Continuation of the Third Great Migration of African-Americans back to the south from the Midwest and Northeast.

2. About 150,000 Koreans

3. A few hundred thousand latino emmigrants

4. Just being a Sunbelt city.

[Akhenaton06]

Originally Posted by A&M Bulldawg

Houston is a beast!

So is Atlanta and Dallas.

[adavi215]

Originally Posted by Chicago South Sider

The growth rates of Houston, Dallas and Atlanta are not sustainable over the long term. Also, I wonder if so many people would be moving there if the cost of living were not so cheap.

I mean no disrespect, but statements like this remind me of statements like, "DC wouldn't have as many companies if it weren't the capital," "Houston only has a high GDP because of oil," etc. The fact of the matter stands. Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta are growing, with cheaper cost of living, and relatively growing economies.

[waronxmas]

Originally Posted by adavi215

I mean no disrespect, but statements like this remind me of statements like, "DC wouldn't have as many companies if it weren't the capital," "Houston only has a high GDP because of oil," etc. The fact of the matter stands. Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta are growing, with cheaper cost of living, and fast growing economies.

Fixed that for you.

Houston in particular that has seen it's GDP double in 20 years.

[adavi215]

Originally Posted by waronxmas

Fixed that for you.

Houston in particular that has seen it's GDP double in 20 years.

Lol. Thanks. I know Atlanta is sputtering compared to past growth. So I was trying to be all inclusive considering the current state of the economy.

[waronxmas]

Originally Posted by adavi215

Lol. Thanks. I know Atlanta is sputtering compared to past growth. So I was trying to be all inclusive considering the current state of the economy.

I wouldn't use the term "sputtering", but yes it has changed during the recession and is "lower" than in years past. The odd thing is the reason for that is because of people in Northeastern and Midwestern cities have stopped migrating for the most part (where a big chunk of out of state Atlanta transplants come from). But if you look at the stats from the last page births and growth from foreign emigration remain unchanged for the most part. Basically, once the recession it'll be back to 150,000+ new residents a year instead of 100,000 a year. It's all good, we kind of need a breather.

[DANNYY]

Here it is for Boston's Metropolitan Area, some fun facts can be that Boston is the first and only Metropolitan Area in the Frostbelt that has reversed negative migration and turned it into positive. That's great news for Boston, its seems to be setting new records even for New York City to follow.

New England Metropolitan Area (Boston MSA):

2000 & 2001: 4,443,310
Birth: 73,120
Death: 45,132
Domestic Migration: -15,605
International Immigration: 31,574
The Gain/Loss (+/-) from the previous year: + 51,966

2002: 4,459,011
Birth: 57,471
Death: 36,436
Domestic Migration: -34,753
International Immigration: 23,925
The Gain/Loss (+/-) from the previous year: + 15,701

2003: 4,458,187
Birth: 57,014
Death: 35,964
Domestic Migration: -48,264
International Immigration: 21,024
The Gain/Loss (+/-) from the previous year: -824

2004: 4,456,479
Birth: 56,202
Death: 35,660
Domestic Migration: -46,803
International Immigration: 19,926
The Gain/Loss (+/-) from the previous year: -1,708

2005: 4,458,891
Birth: 55,299
Death: 35,088
Domestic Migration: -46,025
International Immigration: 21,081
The Gain/Loss (+/-) from the previous year: + 2,412

2006: 4,473,477
Birth: 54,931
Death: 34,246
Domestic Migration: -31,174
International Immigration: 21,811
The Gain/Loss (+/-) from the previous year: + 14,586

2007: 4,503,921
Birth: 54,473
Death: 34,129
Domestic Migration: -17,931
International Immigration: 19,648
The Gain/Loss (+/-) from the previous year: + 30,444

2008: 4,544,705
Birth: 53,836
Death: 34,238
Domestic Migration: -2,173
International Immigration: 19,223
The Gain/Loss (+/-) from the previous year: + 40,784

2009: 4,588,680
Birth: 53,616
Death: 35,111
Domestic Migration: 6,813
International Immigration: 19,250
The Gain/Loss (+/-) from the previous year: + 43,975

And as for my responses for this thread, I am going to fill in for kidphilly (tell me if I sound like him or not ) today:
- Well I think the Sunbelt will experience a slowdown, much faster than West Coast Los Angeles in the 1990's, with Houston, Atlanta, & Dallas never reaching that maturity that Los Angeles had, and that level of infill. I think for Houston it will be hard getting to a density of 8,000 ppsq which anything less than that I consider suburban. These cities all have good admirable qualities like cheap housing and labor and their economies are admirable but really I am willing to bet that neither Houston or Dallas-Fort Worth will pass 9 million in metro.
Although I do see them making improvements to their core but they have still longs way to go before feeling urban. Houston with 620 square miles (its really 579 square miles but he says 620) is not going to be able to pass density of 7,000 ppsqmi, so I think it will still have very suburban attributes to it. I don't see it maturing into a more urban city until growth stops and infill begins taking place, inner core yes, but the rest of Houston will remain mainly suburban- at least to me.

Also I think the US Census may have under counted for Philly, and I think it can grow to possibly catch back up to Houston, the DMA and UA it will keep a indefinite lead over Houston & Atlanta at least. I am delighted to see the city of Philly is growing again.

Haha, if he reads this, I meant this in just jokes- he hasn't posted at all today so I just wanted to fill in for him today. I wonder if it sounds like him at all?

[Chicago South Sider]

Originally Posted by justme02

I think it also has to do with the economies (particularly in Houston and Dallas). It is cheap, but most of it has to do with job situations.

The weather is a plus if youre like me and hate cold weather.

I don't particularly like cold weather but winter doesn't last 12 months. I lived in Atlanta for awhile and the summer humidity was almost unbearable.