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.
One of the states that will really show the severity of this recession will be Arizona, seeing numbers from there will show how severe this recession in general really was to a very fast growing area. Am curious for that one.
.
One of the states that will really show the severity of this recession will be Arizona, seeing numbers from there will show how severe this recession in general really was to a very fast growing area. Am curious for that one.
Arizona will be interesting as it's count for 2010 was 200,000 less than it's estimate for 2009. Nevada won't show the recession though because their 2010 Census count was still a little higher than the 2009 estimate.
This is an interesting thread and I am looking forward to seeing Colorado's cities released next week. It's not Texas, but Denver, Colorado Spring, Aurora and Fort Collins, as well as a few others are of interest to me.
It seems as though there has been a tend of under-counting for a lot of the major cities, so it's hard to guess where the 2010 official census will place these cities.
One thing that I've noticed, specifically with Colorado Springs is that the city's own estimate is closer to 420,000. I'm aware that city's estimates are usually higher than the U.S. Census estimates, but 20,000 seems like a lot for a city Colorado Springs' size.
Here's my best guess for the 2010 counts, based loosely on estimated growth rates over the past few years:
Denver, Aurora and Fort Collins have seen pretty steady growth. Lakewood seems to have leveled off. Colorado Springs has slowed its growth significantly, though it is still growing.
Denver MSA/CSA should be at 2.6/3.2 million or thereabouts. Colorado Springs at 650k.
I guess we'll see next week.
Last edited by iknowftbll; 02-19-2011 at 09:43 AM..
Reason: Whoops: Colorado Springs should be 404,000, not 414,000.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,035,535 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by iknowftbll
It seems as though there has been a tend of under-counting for a lot of the major cities, so it's hard to guess where the 2010 official census will place these cities.
Haha it's actually quite unpredictable, the US Census results I mean.
Take this for example. El Paso in 2009 estimates was tens of thousands smaller than what it really came out as and those Bizjournal estimates released in both August & November, 2010 also had El Paso being 35,000 less than what it came out as. Now El Paso is only a metro of 800,000 people (officially) and roughly small in size too but it actually got 35,000 more people than both estimates & projections had it as.
Here is an intresting chart. I'd say Houston and San Antonio were screwed in this census.
Didn't San Antonio and Houston have high census participation rates?
I'm not convinced that either side is entirely accurate. An individual city should have its thumb on its own pulse much more closely than a federal institution. On the other hand, theoretically a city stands to gain more by inflating its population numbers. I believe that somewhere in the middle lies the answer.
While the study of cities and their growth trends is interesting to me (because it tells a story of American development over the decades) I do not take it personal when a city is undercounted. I can understand pride in one's city, such as Dallas or Chicago. These are both great cities. But they are still great cities, even with the "disappointing performance" on the population counts. In a city of over 2.5 million, does it really make a difference if it's just shy of 2.7 million or just over 2.8 million? Is the differential what makes Chicago a great city? Same with Dallas. An American institution, is Dallas. And it isn't any less so just because it gained only 10,000 this decade.
Of course, if the numbers came out and reported Denver at 560,000 I would be a little surprised and question the methodology behind the count. But I don't think it would make Denver any less of the great city that it is.
But on second thought I can certainly see the concern for a long time Chicago booster. This is Chicago's lowest population count since 1920, and is down nearly 1,000,000 from its peak count of 3,621,000 in 1950. That's nearly as much population loss as Detroit over the same period. Of course, Chicago has absorbed the impact much better than has Detroit, and even had slight growth from 1990 to 2000.
So will Chicago ever see 3 million again? Does it matter? Should the city even be concerned?
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,035,535 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweethomeSanAntonio
Here is an intresting chart. I'd say Houston and San Antonio were screwed in this census.
Didn't San Antonio and Houston have high census participation rates?
This chart makes sense for 2000 to 2005 for what the US Census released, however from 2005 to 2009 those numbers for Houston are actually quite unrealistic.
I guess the final count from the US Census is probably the most accurate, because what was before were just estimates. Your chart says that Houston from 2000 to 2009 got near 285,000 people, which is pretty damn huge of an amount. But looking at the gains in 2 intervals of 5 year periods, 98,000 people gained from 2000 to 2005 seems about right. The numbers from 2005 to 2009 are unbelievable for 4 years where they indicate Houston gained nearly 190,000 people in a 4 year time period when the recession took place.
This Global Economic Recession saw a slowdown in the people migrating in and out of a state, for many states it was a positive economic downturn in terms of growth that it slowed down their outward migration. Those numbers from 2005 to 2009 seem way too out there for 4 years. I think what the US Census reported is probably the most accurate count.
Either way, Houston & San Antonio city level were still major gainers, this recession was pretty severe and both cities managed to put up at least 100,000 and that's pretty well accomplished in itself, in my opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iknowftbll
Does it matter? Should the city even be concerned?
No & No.
I say being over 2 Million is accomplishment enough, land boundaries and all that stuff aside only 5 US Cities can claim to have ever gotten that far, New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, & Houston. And Detroit was just shy of that number at one point.
I think Chicago is fine, more so than the city actually increasing itself, Chicago's going through a decent gain at the metro level.
If you are wondering I am happy with the Census results. Houston Metro is right where it should be for April of 2010.
It should be at 6.1M now.
and Stop picking on Fort Worth-Dallas Metro
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dallaz
The census results is all over the local news. They said Dallas was once a boomtown, now Fort Worth is the new boomtown. They were saying Dallas is landlocked and Fort Worth has more room to grow..............................IT'S ALL TRUE!
(It's going to take awhile for me to accept this)
lol, poor thing. Blame your suburbs. I have been saying forever that your burbs are too attractive and the rail makes it even more so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DANNYY
This is just a whole new level, 9,500 people? What the devil has Dallas been doing the passed decade, kicking people out or something?
that number is hard to swallow. the metro increased by 1,200,000 people and from that only 0.8 percent went to the primary city? That is just crazy. Here I was for the last couple of months ragging on Dallas for attracting only 11% of the growth in the metro and now the census claims that it is actually less than 1% of the growth for the metro??
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtownboogie
I never understood why people always want to make Fort Worth more important than Dallas, even if one day it does pass it in population I can almost guarantee that the metro will still use Dallas for name recognition.
Yeah, the Dallas metropolitan division for now has the bulk of the economic clout for the metro, so Dallas will be the primary name in the metro for the foreseeable future. [/quote]
What's impressive is that New York City hit 2.5 million in 1890, and had about 7.5 million by WWII. I'm not a NYC booster, but there is no denying that this is one of, if not, THE premier city in the world. Now it should be at least 8.4 million? Something like that?
Sorry to get off topic. NYC is for another week...
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.
NYC is for another week...
