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 03-26-2015, 02:48 PM
 
Location: ITP - City of Atlanta Proper
7,794 posts, read 11,727,152 times
Reputation: 5394

Advertisements

It's crazy to me how much of Georgia's growth is in Greater Atlanta. Although it is nothing new (this has been the case for decades now), due to our extremely large number of counties (159), the rural part of the State yields far more political power at the State government level than the metro does.

This means that we have all of the good old boy, cotton pickin, yahoos making all of the decisions for the State...and that usually means stiffing Atlanta when it comes to spending and development. Basically, they all get elected on a "I hate Atlanta" platform. The only good thing they've done in years is pass medical MJ (though a stunted version) yesterday.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-26-2015, 02:50 PM
 
6,795 posts, read 6,588,241 times
Reputation: 5411
Atlanta is the only reason Georgia isn't on decline. They should cherish the city more. It accounts for nearly 90% of Georgia's growth. It lives and dies by Atlanta. I was able to accurately predict the growth for Atlanta in 2014 because of the fact that Georgia's growth is literally Atlanta and maybe Savannah at this point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2015, 02:56 PM
 
Location: Brooklyn, New York
3,231 posts, read 3,475,434 times
Reputation: 2850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant131531 View Post
I know this is off-topic, but what happens to cities in these declining countries like Japan for examples? Do they just become abandoned eventually? Would there be no need for anymore construction(which are huge contributors to a local economy)? Would they have to start taking in more immigrants to fill in the empty housing units, but take a chance with higher crime and more poverty(and potential racial strife)?
Most of the major cities still have growth in those countries, but the rural areas and small cities begin depopulating and even become abandoned. There is still construction of course, and even big "redevelopment" of areas, as the current infrastructure and housing stock ages and becomes obsolete.
Some countries (Europe, US, Canada, Russia etc) decided to supplement their population with international immigrants, to keep the growth going and keep all the cities afloat.
Countries like Japan that are losing population with little international immigration are paying the price with stagnating economy, but without suffering from higher crime rates and quality of life issues that international immigrants would bring.
The problem is countries like China... once China starts losing population. Losing 10 million people per year is no problem for China's huge population, but that's a lot for most other countries, and there is no way in hell China will be able to plug that hole with immigrants.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2015, 03:18 PM
 
Location: LoS ScAnDaLoUs KiLLa CaLI
1,227 posts, read 1,116,748 times
Reputation: 1179
I'm actually shocked that the San Francisco Bay Area is growing so much. You don't typically think of "Bay Area" and "population growth" together, but adding the inland areas really has boosted its growth numbers.

Not to mention I think a lot of it are immigrants coming from abroad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2015, 03:18 PM
 
Location: Syracuse, New York
3,096 posts, read 2,404,309 times
Reputation: 2253
Portland, Oregon's MSA should overtake Pittsburgh right before both get overtaken by San Antonio and Orlando.

Of course, if Salem increases its growth boundary north or Portland's moves south a bit, Salem may become part of Portland's MSA again and Portland's MSA could shoot up the ranks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2015, 03:50 PM
 
1,353 posts, read 1,135,440 times
Reputation: 790
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lets Eat Candy View Post
I'm actually shocked that the San Francisco Bay Area is growing so much. You don't typically think of "Bay Area" and "population growth" together, but adding the inland areas really has boosted its growth numbers.

Not to mention I think a lot of it are immigrants coming from abroad.
Close to 20% was from net domestic migration, which is actually quite high (one of the highest). RE: geography of growth - San Francisco itself contributed its fair share, but the real growth came from Alameda County, which is urbanized (Oakland-San Leandro-Hayward, with some inland areas in the Tri-Valley).

Of the 89K in just the SF + SJ metros (which is itself 79% of CSA growth, and only 76% of the CSA population):

31% was from Alameda County (urbanized, limited inland areas)
27% from Santa Clara (I believe most of that was concentrated in the northern half, not the southern half)
17% from Contra Costa (ok this is basically inland...includes areas like Walbut Creek)
13% from San Francisco (and SF is 13% of the population, so like I said, "fair share" for such a dense/expensive city)
9% San Mateo (not inland at all)
2% Marin


So it looks like the majority was not inland at all. Just between SF and Oakland was where > 50% of the growth was. Certainly at least 17% was inland from Contra Costa, and then the 27% from SJ could be inland or not, we'll find out later.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2015, 04:37 PM
 
Location: Tokyo, Japan
6,479 posts, read 7,708,485 times
Reputation: 7295
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZLiam View Post
It looks like you could sandwich the Phoenix MSA between #7 Washington and # 8 Colorado.
Thanks for pointing it out. I added it (check).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2015, 04:40 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
15,404 posts, read 24,380,612 times
Reputation: 8769
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonelitist View Post
Close to 20% was from net domestic migration, which is actually quite high (one of the highest). RE: geography of growth - San Francisco itself contributed its fair share, but the real growth came from Alameda County, which is urbanized (Oakland-San Leandro-Hayward, with some inland areas in the Tri-Valley).

Of the 89K in just the SF + SJ metros (which is itself 79% of CSA growth, and only 76% of the CSA population):

31% was from Alameda County (urbanized, limited inland areas)
27% from Santa Clara (I believe most of that was concentrated in the northern half, not the southern half)
17% from Contra Costa (ok this is basically inland...includes areas like Walbut Creek)
13% from San Francisco (and SF is 13% of the population, so like I said, "fair share" for such a dense/expensive city)
9% San Mateo (not inland at all)
2% Marin


So it looks like the majority was not inland at all. Just between SF and Oakland was where > 50% of the growth was. Certainly at least 17% was inland from Contra Costa, and then the 27% from SJ could be inland or not, we'll find out later.
The fastest growing city in Alameda County is Dublin. I would bet much of AC's growth came from the inland Tri-Valley area as Dublin was been growing like crazy the past few years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2015, 04:43 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
15,404 posts, read 24,380,612 times
Reputation: 8769
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonelitist View Post
Close to 20% was from net domestic migration, which is actually quite high (one of the highest). RE: geography of growth - San Francisco itself contributed its fair share, but the real growth came from Alameda County, which is urbanized (Oakland-San Leandro-Hayward, with some inland areas in the Tri-Valley).

Of the 89K in just the SF + SJ metros (which is itself 79% of CSA growth, and only 76% of the CSA population):

31% was from Alameda County (urbanized, limited inland areas)
27% from Santa Clara (I believe most of that was concentrated in the northern half, not the southern half)
17% from Contra Costa (ok this is basically inland...includes areas like Walbut Creek)
13% from San Francisco (and SF is 13% of the population, so like I said, "fair share" for such a dense/expensive city)
9% San Mateo (not inland at all)
2% Marin


So it looks like the majority was not inland at all. Just between SF and Oakland was where > 50% of the growth was. Certainly at least 17% was inland from Contra Costa, and then the 27% from SJ could be inland or not, we'll find out later.
The fastest growing city in Alameda County is Dublin. I would bet a good chunk of AC's growth came from the inland Tri-Valley area. Dublin was been growing like crazy the past few years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2015, 05:05 PM
 
1,353 posts, read 1,135,440 times
Reputation: 790
^^^Dublin went from 46K in 2010 to an estimated 50K in 2013's estimate. That's impressive growth, but in terms of sheer numbers cannot possibly contain a large part of the overall growth in Alameda Co, unless there are a lot of unincorporated and yet still developed areas around there that are "Dublin"?

Looking at incorporated Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, San Ramon, and Danville, there are a solid few hundred thousand people living in that area, but the growth is maybe ~5K/yr at best? Based on 2010 Census to 2013 Estimate.

Fremont is growing rapidly. Hayward, San Leandro, Union City, and other inner towns are growing just as fast as Dublin and Pleasanton, and have a starting basis that's already that much higher. Heck, even Berkeley is growing. I think the inner Alameda areas are posting strong growth; just my hunch.
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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, 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, 33, 34, 35 - Top