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.
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.
Sure, but if you read the article, Chicago has received the MORE than most cities. You can try to discount that, but those figures are there for you to see.
Click the link I posted. Houston's domestic in-migration numbers have increased since 2000. This isn't the 90s anymore. I was questioning if the Central American immigrants are included as domestic migrants only for Houston, because that wouldn't make sense imo.
You took my post out of context though. I never said that Central Americans constitute the majority of Houston's domestic migrants. Houston in 2014 received 66,000 domestic migrants and in 2015 received 60,000 domestic migrants. I believe a few thousand of that are Central Americans and yes, they do count as domestic migrants. That is how the Census Bureau measures movement by the way.
The Central Americans that cross into TX to border areas such as Del Rio, Laredo, and the Rio Grande Valley (McAllen-Brownsville-Harlingen) count as immigrants to those areas and when they are resettled to other cities such as Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Boston, Dallas, San Antonio (other cities they have prominent populations in and/or relatives and family) they count as domestic migrants.
The primary location that you enter in the United States, you are an immigrant to. From there on out, all secondary locations you are a domestic migrant.
As to the other guy that keeps on asking for proof that Houston's Central American population is growing as much as everyone else knows its growing by;
Central American Countries + Colombia and Venezuela, July 1, 2013 - July 1, 2014:
- Greater Houston CSA 2013: 342,181
- Greater Houston CSA 2014: 398,338
Difference in 12 months (1 year) of time: + 56,157
^ Expect this number to be even higher in 2015 than 2014, as it was in 2014 compared to 2013, and 2013 compared to 2012, and 2012 compared to 2011, so on and so forth.
Houston's population of people from this part of the world is growing in larger numbers than what most places add in total new population overall, to put into perspective.
This isn't even factoring in Cuba and other non-Mexico Latin American nations but only factoring Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Colombia, and Venezuela. With other non-Mexico Latin American countries it goes even higher.
Like I mentioned earlier, Central Americans (along with Northern South Americans) are the largest and fastest growing group in Houston. Followed by Asians. Those are the facts.
The turmoil in Central America and Northern South America is pushing more people out each year, it gets higher. Houston is one of the biggest gainers of these people and the state it is in is the biggest gainer in these people (Houston is top 4 in the country) but other cities getting more of them each year include Miami, New York, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., Boston, Dallas, San Antonio, and the Rio Grande Valley area of TX.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 03-25-2016 at 01:39 PM..
July 1, 2013 - July 1, 2014 (1 year) Population Change for Greater Houston CSA:
- Central Americans + Colombians and Venezuelans: + 56,157
- Asians: + 35,834
- Non-Hispanic Blacks: + 33,005
- Mexicans: + 28,945
It posted gains in all groups but it is a fact that Central Americans are the largest growing group there by far actually. So now that we've gone over the obvious, it is time to move on to re-integrating other cities into this thread discussion.
Oh and source is the United States Census Bureau. There isn't a more verifiable source than that.
I did a comprehensive analysis of trying to determine why the Pittsburgh MSA is continuing to lag in population gains. It seems to me we should have at a MINIMUM least a small gain instead of a small decrease in population with the most development the region has seen in 35+ years.
Using the numbers/estimates from the census Bureau, I broke each county in the metro down to the municipal level - from there, I split the municipalities into either part of the continuous Pittsburgh Urban Area or Rural/outside urban area. It seems that although at the county level and MSA level we are still slightly losing population, we are GAINING at the urban area level.
PITTSBURGH URBAN AREA
2000 Population: 1,779,969
2010 Population: 1,734,869 (-45,100 or -2.53%) *Less than the MSA level drop percent wise
2014 Population: 1,742,985 (+8,116 or +0.47%)
RURAL PORTIONS OF MSA
2000 Population: 654,427
2010 Population: 621,725 (-32,702 or -5.00%) *MORE than the MSA level drop percent wise
2014 Population: 612,715 (-9,010 or -1.45%)*MORE than the MSA level drop percent wise
URBAN PORTIONS:
ALLEGHENY URBAN AREA (Entire county, with the exception of Forward Twp, Fawn Twp, and Frazer Twp)
2000 Population: 1,277,400
2010 Population: 1,219,268 (-58,132 or -4.55%)
2014 Population: 1,227,368 (+8,100 or +0.66%) *Over a 5.00% change
WESTMORELAND URBAN AREA
2000 Population: 221,889
2010 Population: 222,249 (+360 or +0.16%)
2014 Population: 218,697 (-3,552 or -1.60%) *Major contributor to the loss right now
WASHINGTON URBAN AREA
2000 Population: 100,222
2010 Population: 110,126 (+9,904 or +9.88%)
2014 Population: 111,852 (+1,726 or +1.57%) *Slowing down a bit, but actual sustainable growth
BUTLER URBAN AREA
2000 Population: 43,666
2010 Population: 53,640 (+9,974 or +22.84%)
2014 Population: 56,223 (+2,583 or +4.82%) *Continued boom in Southern Butler County
BEAVER URBAN AREA
2000 Population: 134,830
2010 Population: 127,773 (-7,057 or -5.23%)
2014 Population: 127,079 (-694 or -0.54%) *Population hemorrhaging seems to be over in Beaver County
FAYETTE URBAN AREA
2000 Population: 0
2010 Population: 0 (0 or 0.00%)
2014 Population: 0 (0 or 0.00%) *Continuous urban development does not reach Fayette County
ARMSTRONG URBAN AREA
2000 Population: 1,962
2010 Population: 1,813 (-149 or -7.59%)
2014 Population: 1,766 (-47 or -2.59%) *Only Freeport Borough is part of the Pittsburgh Urban Area
RURAL PORTIONS: ALLEGHENY RURAL AREA (Just Forward, Fawn, and Frazer Townships)
2000 Population: 7,561
2010 Population: 6,909 (-652 or -8.62%)
2014 Population: 6,879 (-30 or -0.43%) *Even Rural Allegheny County is stabilizing
WESTMORELAND RURAL AREA
2000 Population: 148,104
2010 Population: 139,807 (-8,297 or -5.60%) *Huge reason we lost so much last decade
2014 Population: 137,272 (-2,535 or -1.81%) *Major contributor to the loss right now
WASHINGTON RURAL AREA
2000 Population: 102,675
2010 Population: 97,694 (-4,981 or -4.85%) *A reason we lost so much last decade
2014 Population: 96,394 (-1,300 or -1.33%) *Still depopulating a fair amount. Includes the Mon Valley
BUTLER RURAL AREA
2000 Population: 130,417
2010 Population: 130,222 (-195 or -0.15%) *Without Slippery Rock, this would be higher
2014 Population: 129,180 (-1,042 or -0.80%) *Seems to be losing at a much higher rate now
BEAVER RURAL AREA
2000 Population: 46,582
2010 Population: 43,359 (-3,223 or -6.92%)
2014 Population: 42,885 (-474 or -1.09%)
FAYETTE RURAL AREA
2000 Population: 148,658
2010 Population: 136,606 (-12,052 or -8.11%) *Entire County, and largest reason for population loss
2014 Population: 134,086 (-2,520 or -1.84%) *Entire County, and a major reason for population loss
*I think they area overestimating Fayette County, which could hurt us more in 2020. Fayette County is a true Appalachian County, with widespread poverty and no development in the entire county.
ARMSTRONG RURAL AREA
2000 Population: 70,430
2010 Population: 67,128 (-3,302 or -7.59%) *Entire county, except Freeport. Very much like Fayette Co.
2014 Population: 66,019 (-1,109 or -2.59%) *Entire county, except Freeport. Seems to be stabilzing a bit.
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.
Barstow has 30,000. So subtract it from the 18.6 million as you wish.
July 1, 2013 - July 1, 2014 (1 year) Population Change for Greater Houston CSA: - Central Americans + Colombians and Venezuelans: + 56,157
- Asians: + 35,834
- Non-Hispanic Blacks: + 33,005
- Mexicans: + 28,945
It posted gains in all groups but it is a fact that Central Americans are the largest growing group there by far actually. So now that we've gone over the obvious, it is time to move on to re-integrating other cities into this thread discussion.
Oh and source is the United States Census Bureau. There isn't a more verifiable source than that.
July 1, 2013 - July 1, 2014 (1 year) Population Change for Greater Houston CSA:
- Central Americans + Colombians and Venezuelans: + 56,157
- Asians: + 35,834
- Non-Hispanic Blacks: + 33,005
- Mexicans: + 28,945
It posted gains in all groups but it is a fact that Central Americans are the largest growing group there by far actually. So now that we've gone over the obvious, it is time to move on to re-integrating other cities into this thread discussion.
Oh and source is the United States Census Bureau. There isn't a more verifiable source than that.
Those 4 components add up to 153k. Are you telling me non-Hispanic white growth is that low in Houston?
Yeah, it is that low but the reality is that only a dozen and a half areas over 1 million are even adding non-Hispanic Whites as it is. Led in percentages by Austin and Portland (followed by Denver, Seattle, and Minneapolis) and in raw numbers by Dallas/Fort Worth, Atlanta, Austin, Seattle, Denver, Portland, Minneapolis/Saint Paul, and Raleigh/Durham in that same order.
Overall Houston's "White" population went up by 19,000 in 2014 but among non-Hispanic Whites, that was significantly lower than the "White" population itself. Still posted gains but it was much less than its other groups.
Yeah, it is that low but the reality is that only a dozen and a half areas over 1 million are even adding non-Hispanic Whites as it is. Led in percentages by Austin and Portland (followed by Denver, Seattle, and Minneapolis) and in raw numbers by Dallas/Fort Worth, Atlanta, Austin, Seattle, Denver, Portland, Minneapolis/Saint Paul, and Raleigh/Durham in that same order.
Overall Houston's "White" population went up by 19,000 in 2014 but among non-Hispanic Whites, that was significantly lower than the "White" population itself. Still posted gains but it was much less than its other groups.
How do you get the pop. growth of racial components of MSA/CSA anyway?...I'm having trouble using the Factfinder website.
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.
