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.
LA's CSA is over-broad. It includes all of Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties, and looks like this:
(From Wikipedia)
It includes disconnected areas like Lancaster-Palmdale, Victorville-Hesperia, Palm Springs-Palm Desert, Barstow, and various other cities. I remember someone going through the LA CSA and trimming it back closer to the urban area, and the population was somewhere around 15.5 million.
Those random cities you mentioned probably have 600,000 people. Likely 400,00.
Not 3.5 million.
The majority of sb County is a extension of LA county.
The top 60 metros are all metros 900k and above in population.
1-20
21-40
41-60
I think we are seeing some corrections this year from previous over estimates. Chicago followed it's trend from the last few years, but prior to that it was shown as growing at a decent pace the first couple estimates after the 2010 census. I think Pittsburgh is a correction. There a couple other cities that I also think they corrected which is why it looks dramatic. These numbers shift even after they are initially published, and can't really be too heavily weighted.
Pittsburgh's was corrected. The difference between the initial estimate and corrected was going from (-1,000) since 2010 to a (+2,000) since 2010. The 3,000 person correction doesn't seem like a huge deal to cities gaining 50,000 or more a year but to a city finally turning a new leaf it's huge. Hopefully the new number showing a loss will be corrected the same next year.
Interesting article on Chicago's population. Chicago is attracting singles, not families. SO, patience, when these singles get married and have families, Chicago's population will increase, just as the cities listed who are attracting families, rather than singles.
This is true in all big cities. Singles are always attracted to city centers. Has really nothing to do with Chicago's population and economic woes.
And that link is ridiculous. It isn't even comparing apples-to-apples data. It's comparing the City of Chicago to MSAs and CSAs and then the author wonders why a city center has smaller household sizes than metro areas.
Those random cities you mentioned probably have 600,000 people. Likely 400,00.
Not 3.5 million.
The majority of sb County is a extension of LA county.
Yeah, I don't get why people say a particular MSA or CSA boundary is "unfair."
The MSA/CSA calculations are exactly the same for all U.S. cities. There is nothing "unfair" when you are applying the exact same standards equally to all.
It's because Riverside and sb County go to the Nevada border
It's almost entirely desert, but these guys love to ignore this.
The inland empire is pretty dense in comparison to other cities outlying counties.
Yeah, I don't get why people say a particular MSA or CSA boundary is "unfair."
The MSA/CSA calculations are exactly the same for all U.S. cities. There is nothing "unfair" when you are applying the exact same standards equally to all.
The only unfair bits I can see is that county sizes can vary greatly so massive counties can pull in urban areas that are quite far from the core and not part of the commuter shed (such as has been mentioned with Barstow and LA) though those are generally not huge in terms of numbers. The other potentially unfair bit would be if a county is basically split in its commuter numbers between two potential CSAs, but as a whole becomes awarded to just one such as the case for the more far flung suburbs of Philadelphia and NYC.
Austin's growth rate is and continues to be ridiculous. 16% It's a double edge sword. They have the worst traffic in Texas with out true mass transit despite being waayyy smaller than Dallas and Houston. And the price of living there is obscene at this point. Good food and great culture though, and the location geographically is gorgeous.
The only unfair bits I can see is that county sizes can vary greatly so massive counties can pull in urban areas that are quite far from the core and not part of the commuter shed (such as has been mentioned with Barstow and LA) though those are generally not huge in terms of numbers. The other potentially unfair bit would be if a county is basically split in its commuter numbers between two potential CSAs, but as a whole becomes awarded to just one such as the case for the more far flung suburbs of Philadelphia and NYC.
But the giant county sizes out West are mostly empty. It shouldn't make any difference. We're talking desert.
And the CSA/MSA rules don't even allow for the scenario you're alluding to re. commuter splits. The case you mentioned (suburbs between Philly and NYC) aren't split at all. There isn't one county in NJ where the commuter share is split between those two metros. Every county in NJ is overwhelmingly oriented towards one direction or the other.
And again, there is no "bias" if a rule is being applied the same everywhere.
They are eventually either granted asylum and a residency card to live in the United States either temporarily until a situation can be worked out for them or for the longterm. Those that have families in the United States are transported to locations where they have the most family (usually Houston, Miami, Los Angeles, New York, Washington DC, Dallas, San Antonio, and Boston), and the remaining majority of them become residents of Texas throughout all of its cities, chief among them Houston and Rio Grande Valley.
In Houston's population growth numbers, these people count as "domestic migrants" because they check in the Rio Grande Valley where they are given their documentation (either temporary or longterm) for residency and then they migrate to Houston from the Rio Grande Valley and other areas on the Texas border (Laredo and Del Rio).
This is why Houston's domestic migration numbers have gone up over the last couple of years, each year even more so, because each year Texas receives more and more Central Americans. It constantly speeds up because the violence and turmoil in Central America is not subsidizing. These people are not counted in Houston's "new immigrant" numbers but rather in the domestic migration numbers because they move to Houston after having immigrated first to the Rio Grande Valley in Texas or other border areas in Texas.
First, I think Houston being talked about so much is not that big of a deal considering it was the fastest growing metro area. Those landmarks the other metro areas reached don't take away from Houston leading the pack.
But are you sure those migrants are counted as domestic migrants and why only for Houston?
Those domestic numbers show Houston to not be new to getting tens of thousands of domestic migrants. I think the city has become more popular to general Americans this century. It was at the bottom of the map and overlooked. Houston had a booming economy and was one of the top spots for STEM jobs in the country when most other metro areas were stagnant or losing jobs. I think that increased its profile. There is no way Central American immigrants are filling in all this new development.
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.
