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 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 02-17-2011, 06:05 PM
 
933 posts, read 998,321 times
Reputation: 522

Advertisements

After following the recent state releases so far there are a number of trends:
1) The fastest growing cities were overestimated
2) The slower growing cities were underestimated
3) Rural decline still is rampant, but less than estimated.

This may be a direct correlation to one or two things:
1) An over-count to the 2000 census
2) A simple exaggeration of migration trends in this country.

What this is not:
1) This is not a large error in the 2010 Census in comparison to any other census. It's better to get over that thinking now, because there is no more risk of an error this time around than any other.

What are your thoughts on it so far? I know it is a bit premature as many states haven't been release yet. This seems to be consistent for almost all locations that have been released, however.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-17-2011, 06:10 PM
 
Location: Queens NYC/ Southwest Michigan/ Miami Beach Miami
1,585 posts, read 1,426,063 times
Reputation: 707
Seems pretty legit to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2011, 07:51 PM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
25,306 posts, read 33,044,989 times
Reputation: 10724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omahahonors View Post
After following the recent state releases so far there are a number of trends:
1) The fastest growing cities were overestimated
2) The slower growing cities were underestimated
3) Rural decline still is rampant, but less than estimated.
Also, Im very interested in seeing how much cities' initiatives to redevelop blighted inner city neighborhoods have led to significant population growth?

Quote:
This may be a direct correlation to one or two things:
1) An over-count to the 2000 census
2) A simple exaggeration of migration trends in this country.
Or the estimates were wrong.

Quote:
What are your thoughts on it so far? I know it is a bit premature as many states haven't been release yet. This seems to be consistent for almost all locations that have been released, however.
Prior to 1990, the Census Bureau worked together with state agencies to conduct the count and they took into consideration the results of the states, but since then they decided not to include the states and that is a major reason I think the concerns against these numbers being correct is valid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2011, 08:34 PM
 
Location: Somewhere in the universe
2,161 posts, read 2,472,444 times
Reputation: 1377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omahahonors View Post
After following the recent state releases so far there are a number of trends:
1) The fastest growing cities were overestimated
2) The slower growing cities were underestimated
3) Rural decline still is rampant, but less than estimated.
Not necessarily, but mostly yes. I think that it will always be the case that places will be over or underestimated due to the fact that it depends on when you are making your estimates. Back in 2000 or 2001, those estimates were probably pretty accurate, but as time went on we all saw that things changed.

I do think that some of the fastest growing cities that we have yet to see might have done well. I know that a place such as Raleigh was predicted to have gained a lot and I think it probably did considering Austin is one of those "fastest growing" cities as well and actually grew by a lot even though a tad bit lower than the expected 800,000. We will probably see a lot of them overestimated, but I still think they will have shown some good growth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2011, 08:37 PM
 
933 posts, read 998,321 times
Reputation: 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovely95 View Post
Not necessarily, but mostly yes. I think that it will always be the case that places will be over or underestimated due to the fact that it depends on when you are making your estimates. Back in 2000 or 2001, those estimates were probably pretty accurate, but as time went on we all saw that things changed.

I do think that some of the fastest growing cities that we have yet to see might have done well. I know that a place such as Raleigh was predicted to have gained a lot and I think it probably did considering Austin is one of those "fastest growing" cities as well and actually grew by a lot even though smaller than the expected 800,000. We will probably see a lot of them overestimated, but I still think they will have shown some good growth.
Good growth? Yes. Great growth? Yes. A trend to follow for upcoming state releases? Yes.

Austin, San Antonio, Houston and Dallas (also more) all had very strong gains in their MSAs this decade. The question isn't whether they grew a lot, but is actually where the latest estimates fall in line with the 2010 census.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2011, 08:44 PM
 
Location: Somewhere in the universe
2,161 posts, read 2,472,444 times
Reputation: 1377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omahahonors View Post
Good growth? Yes. Great growth? Yes. A trend to follow for upcoming state releases? Yes.

Austin, San Antonio, Houston and Dallas (also more) all had very strong gains in their MSAs this decade. The question isn't whether they grew a lot, but is actually where the latest estimates fall in line with the 2010 census.
Right, and I think that a lot of the "fastest growing" cities will probably be in line if not a little lower than expected. I don't think it's those cities that will surprise the most as the underestimated ones will.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2011, 08:50 PM
 
933 posts, read 998,321 times
Reputation: 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovely95 View Post
Right, and I think that a lot of the "fastest growing" cities will probably be in line if not a little lower than expected. I don't think it's those cities that will surprise the most as the underestimated ones will.
Actually, the fastest growing cities have fallen short so far. Most of the fast growing metros up to this point have fallen short of their 2009 estimate for city and MSA by a significant amount. This doesn't mean they are still not some of the fastest growing US cities, but rather that the US census was a bit too optimistic with their numbers is all. You can't always get them right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2011, 08:52 PM
 
Location: Somewhere in the universe
2,161 posts, read 2,472,444 times
Reputation: 1377
Yeah and there are always some factors to that. I mean, we can't ever really know why that is, but there could be some indications as to why that is.

For instance, it could be an undercount, which is bound to happen, but more than anything I think it has to do with the economy. I'm not sure, any guesses?
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 $84,000 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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:49 PM.

2005-2014, 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 - Top